1977 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AMJAD GHORI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1977 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. S. H. Qureshi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMJAD GHORI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 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 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. S. H. Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AMJAD GHORI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. A. Aziz for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 498‑ Petitioners not alleged to have been present at spot of occurrence and merely alleged to have conspired with another petitioners being influential persons likely to intimidate witnesses, held, not sound in circumstances‑Bail allowed. Muhammad Amin for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 845/13 of 1975, decided on 18th March 1975. ‑‑‑ S. 498‑ Petitioners not alleged to have been present at spot of occurrence and merely alleged to have conspired with another petitioners being influential persons likely to intimidate witnesses, held, not sound in circumstances‑Bail allowed. M. A. Aziz for Petitioner. Muhammad Amin for the State. Learned counsel for State submits that after the case had been made over to the Crimes Branch for further investigation, an application was made before the committing Court for staying the proceedings and for letting the Crimes Branch complete further investigation but the application was rejected by that Court. He admits that the recording of evidence has already stated in that Court and that two witnesses have actually been examined so far. This means that the learned Magistrate hag already taken cognizance of the matter on the basis of the challan submitted in his Court notwith standing the fact that the beading of the challan shows that it was "incomplete". For all purposes, there is no scope now for submission of another challan. In that challan dated 12‑2‑75 the petitioners Muhammad Sajjad Ghori and Shaikh Qaiser 1qbal are shown. In column No.
2. The information furnished by the then learned counsel for State to this Court during the hearing of their previous application (Cr. M. No. 111‑13/1975) that the names of the petitioners appeared in column No. 3 in the last of the challans submitted to the Court, was not correct.
2. The facts of the case have already been dealt with at length in the previous application and a repetition there is not necessary here. Bail is opposed on the ground that the petitioners are influential persons and are likely to intimidate the witnesses. There is no overt act attributed to the petitioners during the occurrence. They are not even said to be present at that time. The allegation against them is only of having conspired with Abdur Rahman alias Billi, co‑accused. In the circumstances, the petitioners are granted bail on their furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties in the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot. Copy of the order be supplies dasti on payment of usual charges. Bail allowed.