1985 P Cr (PLP)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Qurban Sadiq Ikram, J |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 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 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Qurban Sadiq Ikram, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Khudadad Khan Barki for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 325 & 148/149‑‑Bail before arrest, grant of‑‑Petitioners never joining investigation during period of interim bail‑‑Absence of any specific order of Court to petitioners to join investigation during interim bail, held, of no avail‑‑Petitioners, held, misused concession of interim bail, in‑circumstances ‑‑Confirmation of‑interim bail declined. Mrs. Salma Tasaddaq for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S.498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 325 & 148/149‑‑Bail before arrest, grant of‑‑Petitioners never joining investigation during period of interim bail‑‑Absence of any specific order of Court to petitioners to join investigation during interim bail, held, of no avail‑‑Petitioners, held, misused concession of interim bail, in‑circumstances ‑‑Confirmation of‑interim bail declined. Khan Khudadad Khan Barki for Petitioners. Mrs. Salma Tasaddaq for the State. The present case was registered vide F.I.R. No. 301, dated 22‑6‑1984, under section 325/452/148/149, P.P.C. Their petition for pre‑arrest bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereafter they approached this Court. They were allowed interim bail before arrest by my order, dated 19‑7‑1984. 2. I have checked up the police file of this case and have also been informed by the learned State counsel that the petitioners did not join the investigation of this case at any stage of the investigation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there was no order by this Court while granting interim bail that the petitioners should join the investigation. It is next contended that according to his instructions, the petitioners joined the investigation. 4. I have checked up the police record as stated above. The petitioners never joined the investigation of this case. The contention of the learned counsel that there was no specific order of this Court to the petitioners that they should join investigation is wholly misconceived. Such an order is never necessary. It is the duty of the accused that they should associate themselves with the investigation. This means that so far they have been misusing the concession of interim bail earlier allowed to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara and then given to them by this Court I will not,) therefore, hear the petition on merits. Dismissed. S. G. D. Bail refused.