1989 PLP 4012 (MLD)
FATTA and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4012 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | FATTA and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4012 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4012 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4012 (MLD) (FATTA and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Javed Buttar for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑ --Accused named in F.I.R. and were alleged to have fired with fire‑arms resulting in injuries to witnesses‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No injury caused to deceased or any of witnesses by accused‑‑Case of further inquiry‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Sarfraz Hussain for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No injury caused to deceased or any of witnesses by accused‑‑Case of further inquiry‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Javed Buttar for Petitioners. Sarfraz Hussain for the State. Petitioners Fatta son of Allah Yar, Riaz son of Fatta, Shana son of Mahmand, and Mumtaz alias Taz son of Manzoor seek bail in a case registered against them and others with Police Station Lalian, District Jhang, vide F.I.R. dated 29‑9‑1988. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 29‑9‑1988 at about 5‑30 p.m. armed with fire‑arms caused the death of one Akhtar Nawaz and murderous assault on Nazir and Muhammad Ayyub.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as far as Fatta petitioner is concerned, no overt act is attributed to him at all. He is not alleged to have fired at any of the injured or the deceased. Submits that as far as the remaining petitioners are concerned, they are not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased, but had fired at the injured PWs. Submits that the co- accused of the petitioners who were alleged to have fired at the deceased have since been released on bail because they were held innocent. The petition has been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. except for Fatta petitioner, the rest are alleged to have fired at Nazir and Ayyub, inured PWs. Riaz, Shana and Mumtaz, petitioners were armed with fire‑arm and caused injuries as well to the P.Ws., who were accompanying the deceased. In these circumstances, their involvement in the commission of the offence prima facie is established. Therefore, there is no ground to release them on bail at this stage. As far as Fatta petitioner is concerned, he is not alleged to have caused any injury either to the deceased or to the injured PWs. His case is of further inquiry. Therefore, Fatta son of Allah Yar, alone is allowed bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. SA./F‑140/L Petition allowed.