1996 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN alias HAJI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1996 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN alias HAJI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 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: 1996 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN alias HAJI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Muhammad Farooq and Sh. Muhammad Rahim for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324
Accused in investigation was found to have killed his sister and injured her paramour by firing on having seen them in a compromising position
Accused appeared to have committed the offence under grave and sudden provocation and his case required further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Muhammad Farooq and Sh. Muhammad Rahim for Petitioner. Sahibzada Farooq Ali Khan for the Complainant. Mrs. Tasneem Akbar for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered through F.I.R. No. 164 of 1993, under section 302/324, P.P.C., at Police Station, City Jalalpur Pirwala for murdering Mst. Kalsoom alias Begum his sister from the same father and causing injuries to Muzaffar son of Muhammad Usman complainant.
2. The occurrence took place on 12-9-1993 at 3 p.m. The investigation was held by D.S.P. on 13-9-1993. According to his findings Mst. Kalsoom was found in compromising position with Muzaffar. Muhammad Ramzan her brother from the same father fired at her and she died at the spot whereas Muzaffar was hit at the back of his right shoulder while he was running away.
3. In these circumstances, it appears prima facie that the offence was committed under the influence of grave and sudden provocation. As per rule laid down in judgment reported as Sardar Muhammad v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 2601 it is a case of grant of bail as the case requires further investigation and falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. It may also be pointed out that Abdul Hameed the father of Mst. Kalsoom also stated before the Investigating Officer that his daughter Mst. Kalsoom was having illicit relations with Muzaffar and was in compromising position when the occurrence took place.
5. The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Multan. N.H.Q./M-2011/L Bail allowed