1987 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL KARIM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL KARIM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL KARIM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860). Ss. 302 & 307/34--Bail, cancellation of--Common intention--ineffective firing attributed to respondents--Question of sharing common intention with co-accused, requiring further inquiry--Cancellation declined. Shahid Hussain Kadri for the Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497(5)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860). Ss. 302 & 307/34--Bail, cancellation of--Common intention--ineffective firing attributed to respondents--Question of sharing common intention with co-accused, requiring further inquiry--Cancellation declined. Shahid Hussain Kadri for the Petitioner. This is an application for the cancellation of bail of Abdul Karim and Abdul Majid respondents allowed to them in a case under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. allowed to them by this Court. The respondent alongwith Abdur Rahim co-accused stood charged with the murder of Mst. Safia Iqbal deceased 11/12 years. 3. They were admitted to bail because only ineffective firing had been attributed to them. The cancellation is sought, on the ground that since the respondents were also armed with guns they shared the common intention with the principal accused, namely, Abdur Rahim. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any substance in his contentions. Admittedly ineffective firing is attributed 'to the respondents. Therefore, the question as to whether they shared common intention with Abdur Rahim co-accused requires further inquiry. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. S . A . Petition dismissed.