1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and another Respondents
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mazharul Haq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazharul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Yaqub Sheikh for Petitioner.
- Amjad Ahmad Sheikh for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑ Petitioner, a juvenile offender, being about 14 years and 10 months old on day of occurrence, causing a solitary knife injury 'to victim‑ Contention that petitioner could not be allowed bail on ground of youth alone repelled‑‑Youth, held further, always considered a ground for bail‑‑Cancellation of bail declined in circumstances. Sarfraz Hussain for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑ Petitioner, a juvenile offender, being about 14 years and 10 months old on day of occurrence, causing a solitary knife injury 'to victim‑ Contention that petitioner could not be allowed bail on ground of youth alone repelled‑‑Youth, held further, always considered a ground for bail‑‑Cancellation of bail declined in circumstances. M. Yaqub Sheikh for Petitioner. Sarfraz Hussain for the State. Amjad Ahmad Sheikh for Respondent. Muhammad Ali, petitioner, has applied for the cancellation of bail allowed to Amjad Ali in the murder case pending against him.
2. The respondent was allowed bail on the ground of his youth. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since he acted in a cruel, brutal and unusual manner, therefore, he should not have been allowed bail on account of his age.
3. I have considered the matter. On the day of occurrence, respondent was 14 years and 10 months old. There is the solitary injury attributed to him with a knife to the victim. Youth has always been considered a ground for bail. It has been reported by the Sessions Judge that the case is to be fixed for 11‑1‑
86. Under these circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for interfering in the bail order. This petition is dismissed with the direction to the office w, that the record of the case be sent back to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, forthwith, and after the despatch of the record, the office will bring it to my notice by tomorrow. S. G. D. Petition dismissed.