1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUNAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Salim Khan Chichi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/307/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused had earlier applied for bail, but Court did not consider him entitled to it anti dismissed his bail application on ground that he was alleged to he a member of unlawful assembly which had waylaid and launched attack on complainant party with fire‑arms‑‑Present bail application filed on same ground was also dismissed but it was directed by the High Court that accused being behind bar since long and trial having not been commenced as no full‑fledged Sessions Judge had been posted after elevation of former to the Bench trial of accused may be concluded in a period of three months.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Younas petitioner alongwith 6 others charged for the murder of Muhammad Ameen deceased and for murderously assaulting Muhammad Azeem P.W. with fire‑arms on 3‑12‑198'7.
2. Bail is pleaded on the ground that though he was said to be carrying fire‑arm he did not fire at the deceased and is alleged to have caused a simple injury to Muhammad Azeem complainant on his shoulder with revolver.
3. The petitioner had earlier applied for bail but was not considered entitled to bail and his application was dismissed on 5‑7‑1988 on the ground that he was alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly which had waylaid and launched attack on the complainant party with fire‑arms. Almost on the same ground he has applied for bail again. It is stated that he is behind the bars since 8‑1-1980 and that the trial has not commenced as no full‑fledged Sessions Judge has been posted at Sialkot after the elevation of the former Sessions Judge.
4. Instead of granting bail to the petitioner I would direct that his trial be concluded in a period of three months. In case no permanent Sessions Judge is posted at Sialkot the case would be put tip before the officiating Sessions Judge who will either hold the trial himself or may entrust it to any of the Additional Sessions Judges with a direction to conclude the case in three months. The petition is dismissed with the above observation. H.B.T./M‑1074/L Order accordingly.