1986 PLP r (PCRLJ)
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP r (PCRLJ) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP r (PCRLJ)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP r (PCRLJ)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP r (PCRLJ) (MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Asghar Rokhari for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307 & 148/149‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑Defence plea of self‑defence was partly accepted by Trial Court and accused was sentenced to 8 years' R.I.‑‑Appeal of accused not having been fixed for regular hearing in spite of expiry of two years after filing appeal‑‑Sentence suspended in circumstances. Malik Rehmat Khan Awan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Asghar Rokhari for Petitioner. Malik Rehmat Khan Awan for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1985. The petitioner who was tried under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. alongwith four others, was convicted under section 304, P.P.C., and sentenced' to undergo 8 years' R.1. plus a fine of Rs.1,000 in default whereof to suffer one year R.1. by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, vide order, dated 24‑9‑1983.
2. The bail is being sought on the ground that the petitioner who had received 3 injuries in the occurrence, one of which was on the top of the head, had pleaded self‑defence, during the trial, which has been partly accepted by the trial Court, in the sense that he has not been convicted under section
302. P.P.C. and that if the petitioner is not acquitted, in all probability the sentence of 8 years will not be maintained. Lastly, bail has been pressed on the ground that in spite of a period of 2 years having passed, the appeal has not been fixed for regular hearing.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail.
4. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been sentenced to 8 years' R.I. and the plea advanced by him that he had acted in self‑defence has also been partly accepted by the trial Court and particularly taking into account the fact of 2 years having passed since his conviction. I feel inclined to exercise discretion in his favour. He shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. twenty‑five thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Bhakkar. H. A. K. Sentence suspended.