1977 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1977 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. S. H. Qureshi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 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 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. S. H. Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K. M. Virk for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498-Bail-Petitioner neither named in F. I. R. nor in extra- judicial confession made by co-accused but his name transpiring only during investigation as being vicariously responsible for offence- Nine witnesses examined by Magistrate but none of them implicating petitioner-No recovery effected from petitioner-Petitioner admitted to bail-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/364/34. Hakam Ali Dogar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 695/13 of 1975, decided on 10th March, 1975.
S. 498-Bail-Petitioner neither named in F. I. R. nor in extra- judicial confession made by co-accused but his name transpiring only during investigation as being vicariously responsible for offence- Nine witnesses examined by Magistrate but none of them implicating petitioner-No recovery effected from petitioner-Petitioner admitted to bail-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/364/34. K. M. Virk for Petitioner. Hakam Ali Dogar for the State. The petitioner is being prosecuted alongwith other co-accused in connection with the murder of one Arif. It is alleged in the F. I. R., that Sooba, Khan co-accused suspecting Arif deceased of having developed illicit intimacy with his daughter dismissed him from his employment, and, later, in pursuance of a conspiracy, Sabir Hussain, Yunis and Boota took Arif from his house after which Arif did not return. Search made for him was of no avail and it became a common talk that Sooba Khan had in conspiracy with Muhammad Ibrahim. Sabir Hussain, Yunis and Boota co-accused got Arif murdered and concealed his dead body. The complainant who is father of the deceased, entreated Yunis co-accused to, disclose at least as to where Arif went. At this Yunis told him that he, Sabir Hussain and Boota, as per instruction of Sooba Khan and Muhammad Ibrahim, had taken the deceased to a deserted kiln where Sabir Hussain had severed his neck by a toka. 2. The name of the petitioner, as can be seen, does not figure in the F. I. R. of even in the extra judicial confession attributed to Yunis Co-accused. As noted by the learned Sessions Judge, the name of the petitioner transpired during the investigation .for being vicariously responsible for the crime. Nine out of 32 witnesses are said to have since been examined by the Enquiry Magistrate, but none of them, it is submitted has implicated the petitioner. It is also urged that no recovery has been effected from him. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, 3 of the co-accused, namely Sooba Khan, Muhammad Ibrahim and Boota are already on bail. In these circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like Sam to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala. Petition accepted.