1983 PLP 1999 (PCRLJ)
NIAZ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent.
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1999 (PCRLJ) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, .1 |
| Parties | NIAZ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent. |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1999 (PCRLJ)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1999 (PCRLJ)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, .1.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1999 (PCRLJ) (NIAZ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Siddiq Safdar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Bail, grant of-[Murder-case]-Petitioner's name, weapon used and part played by him specifically mentioned in F. I. R. Petitioner allegedly armed with a pistol and Medico-Legal Report also showing deceased and an injured witness having received fire arm injuries-Mere fact that two out of six witnesses exonerated petitioner from charge, held, not a sufficient and good ground for grant of bail-Bail declined, in circumstances. Nasim Rashid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for bail on behalf of Niaz Ahmad in a case under section 302/307/148/149; P. P. C., registered at P. S. Khanewal, vide F.I.R. No. 250/251/82, dated 14th. August, 1982.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner with others in furtherance of their common object launched the murderous assault upon Pir Bakhsh and Ahmad Bakhsh. They caused the death of Ahmad Bakhsh and injury to Pir Bakhsh. As for the petitioner it has been alleged that he was armed with a pistol. He fired a shot which hit the deceased as well as Pir Bakhsh P. W.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ; (i) No motive has been assigned to the petitioner and the person to whom the motive was attributed has been found innocent during the investigation. (ii) That the injuries allegedly attributed to the petitioner have been declared simple by the Medical Officer. (iii) That the pistol has not been recovered from the petitioner. (iv) That out of 6 accused 4 have been declared innocent. (v) That two eye-witnesses out of 6 witnesses have sworn affidavits exonerating the petitioner. The learned . coursel for the State has vehemently opposed this application. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material which has been placed on the record of this petition, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel do not make out good ground for the grant of bail to the petitioner inasmuch as the occurrence took place at 6.00 p. m. on 14th August, 1982, the name of the petitioner the weapon used by him and the part played by him have been specifically mentioned in the F. I. R. He was allegedly armed with a pistol. The medico-legal report shows that the deceased and Pir Bakhsh had received injuries with fire-arm. The mere fact that two out of 6 eyewitnesses have exonerated the petitioner would not be a good and sufficient ground for the release of the petitioner on bail particularly when he was armed with a fire-arm. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.