1994 PLP 1533 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SAEED and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1533 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED 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 1994 PLP 1533 (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 1994 PLP 1533 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1533 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SAEED and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri and A.H. Masood for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/382/148/149/109
Question whether or not the accused at the time of occurrence had held the complainant in his clasp was to be determined by Trial Court after regarding evidence
No overt act had been attributed to the accused
Case against accused, thus, was of further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
A case under section 324/382/148/149/109, P.P.C. was registered against Muhammad Saeed and others with Police Station Bhera, District Sargodha, vide F.I.R. No.100 of 1993 dated 19-7-1993. On 27-3-1994, learned counsel did not press the petition to the extent of Atta Ullah, and as such it was dismissed as withdrawn to that extent. Nevertheless, he pressed the petition for grant of bail to Muhammad Saeed. The allegation against the petitioner, Muhammad Saeed, is that he held the complainant, Ehsan-ur-Rehman in his clasp and his co-accused, Atta Ullah fired and injured his left knee. It is contended that admittedly, the petitioner was not armed. He did not do any overt act in the incident in hand. In these circumstances, the bail petition has not been opposed by the learned Law Officer and the State counsel.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. The question whether or not the petitioner, Muhammad Saeed held the complainant in his clasp had to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties. This is, undoubtedly, a case of further inquiry inasmuch as no overt act was attributed to the petitioner. This being so, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Bhalwal, District Sargodha. N.H.Q./M-1520/L Bail allowed.