1990 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 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: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148/149/302/307/323 & 452
No overt act towards commission of murder was ascribed to accused, but he was alleged to have caused simple injuries to one of prosecution witnesses and that also after commission of murder
Co-accused had since been released on bail
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Afzal petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and some others, with Police Station, Shahkot, District Sheikhupura, for offences under section 148/149/302/307/323/452, P.P.C., vide F.I.R. dated 7-5-1989. The role attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that on 7-5-1989 he alongwith his other co-accused went to the house of Abdul Majid. The co-accused of the petitioner is alleged to have raised a Lalkara, whereupon the petitioner dragged a girl namely Saddaf, outside from the house. The witnesses tried to rescue the child, whereupon they were belaboured by the co-accused of the petitioner. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he caused simple injuries to Muhammad Rafique.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the co-accused of the petitioner have since been released on bail except for Zafar Iqbal who is alleged to have committed the murder, and the role ascribed to the petitioner is identical with that of his co-accused who have since been released on bail The petition has been opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel. I have noticed that no overt act towards the commission of murder is ascribed to the petitioner. He is alleged to have caused simple injuries to one of the PW s, and that also after the commission of murder. The co-accused of the petitioner have since been released on bail by the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, I allow bail to the petitioner, provided he furnishes security, in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. ' H.B.T./M-1947/L Bail granted.