1984 P Cr (PLP)
ALI MUHAMMAD and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 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 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (ALI MUHAMMAD and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Muhammad Hussain for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497/498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.307/148/149-- Bail-- Cross-cases filed by both parties and question who opened attack yet to be determined--Case of further inquiry--Bail granted. Muhammad Ashraf Butt for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S.497/498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.307/148/149-- Bail-- Cross-cases filed by both parties and question who opened attack yet to be determined--Case of further inquiry--Bail granted. Ch.Muhammad Hussain for Petitioners. Muhammad Ashraf Butt for the State. This is an application for bail on behalf of Ali Muhammad and 4 others in a case under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. registered at P.S. North Cantt, Lahore, vide-F.I.R. No.185, dated 2nd July, 1982. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners in furtherance of their common object launched the murderous assault upon Lal Din and Labbha and caused injuries with various weapons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a case of free fight in which both the parties have received injuries and a counter case has been registered againt the complainant party of this case. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has not controverted it. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there are cross-cases and it is yet to be determined as to who had opened the attack. The matter, therefore, requires further enquiry. The petitioners are therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. M. Y. H. Bail granted.