1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.A. Zafar for Petitioner. Tasnim Amin for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34/109
Bail, grant of-- Accused who had allegedly made only an ineffective fire had no motive to commit the crime
Accused was behind the bars for the last one and a half years and the trial was yet to commence
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2312/B of 1994, decided on 16th August, 1994
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34/109
Bail, grant of-- Accused who had allegedly made only an ineffective fire had no motive to commit the crime
Accused was behind the bars for the last one and a half years and the trial was yet to commence
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. M.A. Zafar for Petitioner. Tasnim Amin for the State. A case under section 302/109/34, P.P.C was registered at Police Station Kathiala Sheikhan, District Gujrat on 14-2-1993 on the statement of Ghulam Rasool, complainant.
2. The allegation is that Shan Muhammad brother of the complainant was walking ahead of his wife Mst. Hajan and the complainant when all of a sudden co-accused- Ahmad Yar carrying a rifle and the petitioner also armed with a rifle emerged. The shot of Ahmad Yar co-accused hit at the head of Shan Muhammad deceased. The petitioner had also attempted to fire at the deceased but missed the target.
3. The motive of the occurrence was that some time back real nephew of the co-accused Ahmad. Yar had been allegedly murdered and the son of .the deceased was nominated in that case as accused. Ahmad Yar, therefore, bore the grudge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 15-5-1994 dismissed the bail mistaking the petitioner having caused mortal injury to the deceased, whereas in fact it was his co-accused Ahmad Yar who had done the damage. The petitioner is only alleged to have made an ineffective fire and had no motive to commit the crime. He is behind the bars since a considerable period i.e. from 14-2-1993 and the trial is yet to commence. I would, therefore, like to admit the petitioner to bail provided he furnished bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Mandi Bahauddin. N.H.Q./M-1761/L Bail allowed.