1982 PLP 955 (SCMR)
AMJAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 955 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | AMJAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 955 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 955 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 955 (SCMR) (AMJAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Abdul Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th October, 1981.
- Muhammad Abdul Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28-7-1981 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1858/R-1981).
Ss. 497 & 498-Bail in murder case-Version given in F. I. R., found to be false with regard to majority of accused already allowed bail--Co-accused only attributed one injury on leg of deceased- Held, entitled to grant of bail, in circumstances of case. Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑Amjad a student of Ist Year and Mahmood, who has recently appeared in the Intermediate Examination are accused alongwith 7 others for offence under sections 302/149, P. P. C. On investigation it was found that the case against the 7 accused was false and they were, therefore, allowed bail but the petitioners alongwith two others namely, Teraiz and Fazal Khawaja have been challaned. The petitioners applied for bail to the Sessions Judge but his application was dismissed. They then approached the High Court but the High Court refused bail. Hence this petition for leave to Appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no sanctity can be attached to the version given in the F. I. R. in view of the fact that it has been found to be false with regard to the majority of the accused. He submitted further that the petitioners have only been attributed one injury each on the leg of the deceased.
3. We issued a notice to the State and to have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not propose to discuss the merits of the case but feel that in the circumstances of this case the two petitioners are entitled to grant of bail. We, therefore, convert the petition into appeal and allow the same. The petitioners are granted bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 each, with two sureties each, in the alike amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. Bail granted.