1989 PLP 288 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASIM ASAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent.
| Citation | 1989 PLP 288 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal Karim and Rashid Aziz Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASIM ASAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent. |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 288 (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 1989 PLP 288 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal Karim and Rashid Aziz Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 288 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASIM ASAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M/s. R.A.Awan and A. Karim Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/364/109/148/149‑‑Bail‑‑Case said to have been investigated by three Police Officers who, on evidence led before them, found that accused was not present at time of abduct" and killing of deceased but he was a party to conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased; that all other accused of con, ‑said had been allowed bail and that final challan containing findings of aforesaid Police Officers had yet to be tiled in Court‑‑such ground was not taken before trial Court and as it was not taken, it was not considered‑‑Proper course for accused was to first move trial Court for bail do these grounds‑‑Bail petition disposed of accordingly. Altaf Hussain for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Altaf Hussain for the State. Fazal Karim, J.‑‑The petitioner, Muhammad Asim Asad, a student of King Edward Medical College, alongwith six others is accused of having abducted Naeem Hussain Bokhari, also a student of King Edward Medical College, at 11.15 a.m on 31-5-1988 in two cars when Naeem Hussain Bokhari, his father Munawar Hussain and two others, named, Khawar Munir and Liaqat Ali, were waiting for some transport. Later on the same day at about 2.00 p.m the dead body of Naeem Hussain Bokhari was recovered from a place near Sheikh Zaid Hospital.
2. The bail application of the petitioner and his co‑accused was rejected by the order of the learned trial Judge dated 1‑11‑1988. The application of some of the co‑accused of the petitioner, who are alleged to have conspired to abduct and kill Naeem Hussain Bokhari, deceased, was allowed by the same order of the learned trial Judge.
3. In rejecting the application of the petitioner and his co‑accused against whom the allegations are that they had abducted the deceased and then killed him, the learned trial Judge observed that there is direct evidence against‑them.
4. It is now stated that the case was investigated by three police officers Mr. Tahir Alam Inspector, Mr. Gul Asghar DSP and Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad D.S.P. and they all have found, on the evidence led before them that the petitioner was not present at the time of abduction and had nothing to do with the killing of the deceased but he was a party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill the deceased. It is maintained that as all the accused persons, accused of conspiracy, have been allowed bail, the petitioner too is entitled to bail. It is stated that final challan containing the findings of the abovementioned Investigating Officers has yet to be filed in Court.
5. We, however, find that this ground was not taken before the learned trial Judge and as it was not taken, it was not considered. The proper course for the petitioner, therefore, is to first move the trial Judge for bail on this ground.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner's final year examination is starting tomorrow and a direction for arrangements enabling the petitioner to take the examination should be made. For this purpose also, the petitioner should have approached the trial Judge. The petition is disposed of accordingly. M.Y.H./M‑1054/L Bail refused.