1995 PLP 1276 (MLD)
GHAFOOR BAIG‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1276 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | GHAFOOR BAIG‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1276 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1276 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1276 (MLD) (GHAFOOR BAIG‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Muhammad Asadullah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/109/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was alleged to have raised a Lalkara upon which his co‑accused fired at both the deceased who died at the spot‑‑‑Only proverbial Lalkara was attributed to accused‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. PLD 1989 SC 585 ref. Nazir Ahmad v. The State 1993 SCMR 1992 and Rafiq Khan v. The Stale 1995 SCMR 343 rel. J.V. Gardner for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nazir Ahmad v. The State 1993 SCMR 1992 and Rafiq Khan v. The Stale 1995 SCMR 343 rel. Sh. Muhammad Asadullah for Petitioner. J.V. Gardner for the State. Ghafoor Baig, petitioner being accused in case F.I.R. No. 124 dated 20‑8‑1994 under section 302, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with section 109/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Gunda Singh Wala, District Kasur seeks his post‑arrest bail through this petition.
2. According to F.I.R. the petitioner alongwith his co‑accused who was, armed with gun went to the shop of Sardar Baig where Abdul Majid and Muhammad Siddique were enjoying T.V. petitioner raised Lalkara upon which Rustam Baig fired at Abdul Majid and Muhammad Siddique who both died at the spot.
3. In support of the petition, learned counsel argued that only proverbial Lalkara is attributed to the petitioner; as the petitioner was empty‑handed, therefore, no active part can be attributed and the fact that one of the co accused namely Lal Baig has been declared innocent, makes the prosecution story doubtful. It was next contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not appreciated the law laid down in PLD 1989 SC 585 in its true spirit.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition. He argued that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific role but admitted that only Lalkara is attributed to the present petitioner. He also contended that as the challan has been submitted in Court, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. Admittedly, only proverbial Lalkara is attributed to the petitioner. Respectfully following the law laid down in the case of Nazir Ahmad v. The State 1993 SCMR 1992 and Rafiq Khan v. The State 1995 SCMR 343 the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Kasur. Copy Dasti. N.H.Q./G‑272/L Bail allowed.