1987 PLP 2624 (MLD)
ZAFAR etc. — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2624 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | ZAFAR etc. — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2624 (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 1987 PLP 2624 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2624 (MLD) (ZAFAR etc. — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Liaqat Ali Sindhu for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 28th July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/14/149/307--Bail, grant of Accused not doing any overt act in commission of crime and their case one of further inquiry--Bail granted. Muhammad Rafique Butt for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Liaqat Ali Sindhu for Petitioners. Muhammad Rafique Butt for the State. Date of hearing: 28th July, 1987. The petitioners, Zafar son of Muhammad and Allah Ditta son of Sajawal, have moved this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. for bail after arrest in a case under sections 302/14/149/307 P.P.C. arising .out of FIR No.63/86 dated 14-4-1986 registered against them at Police Station Pindi Bhattian, District Gujranwala.
2. It is argued that the only allegation against the petitioners that they raised lalkara on the spot and that both were empty handed. It is further -argued that no injury whatsoever is attributed to the petitioners. The learned state counsel submitted that all the accused persons including the two petitioners had the common object to murder Inayat and Mst. Akhtari deceased.
3. The petitioners did not do any overt act in the commission of the crime and, therefore, their case is a case of further enquiry.
4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case I admit the petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty B thousand) each with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C. Gujranwala. M.Y.H./Z-28/L Bail allowed.