1989 PLP 4916 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ABBAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4916 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABBAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4916 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4916 (MLD)?
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: 1989 PLP 4916 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ABBAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- R.A. Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused was attributed only ineffective "firing‑‑Accused was not a previous convict and was behind the bars for 8 months‑‑Co‑accused who was similarly placed was already released on bail‑‑Bail granted to accused also in circumstances. Aziz Ahmad Chughtai for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Aziz Ahmad Chughtai for the State. Muhammad Abbas petitioner alongwith two others, namely, Muhammad Asghar and Ilyas stands charged for making a murderous assault on Muhammad Saleem P.W. on 19‑10‑1988 with a fire‑arm.
2. The motive for the offence was that about 8 months prior to the occurrence the petitioner and his companions had injured one Muhammad Sharif with fire‑arm for which they were challaned. They were released on bail.
3. Bail is urged on the ground that only ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner and that he had been falsely implicated due to previous enmity.
4. He had earlier applied for bail and his application was dismissed on 11 -4‑1989 on the ground that he was a desperate person being involved in 5/6 criminal cases and further that he had a strong motive to commit the crime. He has applied for bail again. It is contended on his behalf that there were two cases against him of ineffective firing and two connected cases under the Arms Ordinance. He has not been convicted in any of the said cases. As regards motive, it is stated that Muhammad Nazir complainant had nothing‑to do with the case in which Muhammad Sharif mentioned above was injured and further that there is no mention in the F.I.R. that the petitioner had stopped Muhammad Saleem P.W. or Muhammad Nazir complainant from pursuing the said case. Ilyas co‑accused with similar allegations is said to have been admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 23‑4‑1989.
5. The petitioner is behind the bars for over 8 months. The only allegation against him is of ineffective firing. Ilyas co‑accused similarly placed has already been admitted to bail. He is not a previous convict. In this view of the matter, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Cantt., Lahore. S.A./M‑1664/L Bail granted.