1985 P Cr (PLP)
NASEER KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | NASEER KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 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 1985 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: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (NASEER KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/148/149‑‑Accused found innocent during initial investigation‑‑Ilaqa Magistrate discharged accused‑‑Revision against discharge order also dismissed by Sessions Judge‑‑Accused found guilty on re‑investigation and re‑arrested Case already fixed for trial‑‑To go into merits of case, held, was not proper at such stage‑‑Bail petition dismissed. Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The State 1980 S C M R 203 ref. Muhammad Yamin for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Yamin for the Complainant. The petitioner alongwith 6 others is charged with murders of Basharat and Javaid Khan deceased.
2. It is stated that in the initial investigation he was found innocent and got discharged from the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate. A revision against the discharge was filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge which was also dismissed. A writ petition is pending against the discharge order. The matter was re‑investigated by the Crimes Branch. After recording the evidence of four eye‑witnesses they have found the petitioner to be guilty and arrested him.
3. The petitioner seeks bail on the ground that it is a case of further enquiry because in one investigation he was found to be innocent.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application. He states that the discharge order were merely an administrative order and could not prevent the police from re‑investigating into the matter. He further states that the trial of the case has been fixed for 27‑6‑1985 and in this view of the matter the petitioner should not be granted bail.
5. He has cited Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The State 1989 SCMR 203 where the case was not found fit for the grant of special leave to appeal is a bail matter when the date had been fixed for commencement of the trial.
6. Since the trial is to commence shortly. I do not consider it proper to go into the merits of the case and accordingly dismiss the application. S.A. Petition dismissed.