1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Taqi Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
No material was available with the Investigating Agency either against accused or for issuance of process in the complaint
Case thus fell within the purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C
Bail allowed to accused by Trial Court was not cancelled in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Taqi Khan for Petitioner. M. Saleem Shad for the State. Asif Chughtai for the Complainant. For the murder of Muhammad Munir, an F.I.R. was lodged in which not only the respondents but Muhammad Afzal was also named. The matter was investigated into on three occasions by various investigating agencies and the consensus was that only Muhammad Afzal was involved in this case while no evidence was available against respondents Muhammad Arshad and Khalid Mehmood and therefore, their names were placed in Column No.2. Aggrieved by the fate of the investigation, the complainant fled a private complaint against the respondents and the process was issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. On the issuance of the process, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, considering it a case of further enquiry and also by holding that the respondents were only required to execute bonds for appearance admitted them to bail. This application seeking cancellation of bail was moved by the complainant. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents at length. In my view, the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in granting the bail to the respondents is not open to exception. Obviously, it has been held that no material was available against them with the investigating agency on the one hand and for issuance of process in the complaint on the other hand the case falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. It is clarified that this order shall not affect the mind of the trial Court which shall proceed independently on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. With these observations, this petition stands dismissed. N.H.Q./M-817/L Petition dismissed.