1984 PLP 1537(2) (MLD)
EJAZ and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1537(2) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | EJAZ 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 1984 PLP 1537(2) (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 1984 PLP 1537(2) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1537(2) (MLD) (EJAZ and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/148/149--Bail--Accused causing death of deceased by firing on him with their guns--Fact that a cross-complaint had been lodged against accused wherein accused had been summoned and bailed out not making out a case for grant of bail to present main accused--Bail refused. S. Mazhar Hussain Bokhary for the State. Ch. Pervaiz Aftab for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
S. Mazhar Hussain Bokhary for the State. Ch. Pervaiz Aftab for the Complainant. This is an application for bail on behalf of Ejaz and Allah Bukhsh, the petitioners in case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Talumba vide F.I.R. No.80/1983, dated 16-5-1983. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners alongwith 4 others in furtherance of their common object variously armed launched murderous assault on Sultan, Mst. Sakina and Allah Yar and thereby caused the death of Sultan and injuries to Mat. Sakina and Allah Yar P. Ws. As for the petitioners, it has been alleged that they were armed with 12 bore guns and fired on Sultan causing injuries resulting in his death. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are' cross cases and it is yet to be decided as to who was aggressor; that the injuries found on the person of the co-accused were suppressed in the F.I.R. that in the cross-complainant lodged by the petitioners side against the complainant party of this case, the accused therein have been summoned under section 307/325/447/149, P.P.C. and that the accused in the cross complaint are on bail. As against this, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application. 4. After hearing the learned counsel I find that the petitioners have allegedly caused the death of Sultan by firing on him with their guns and as such they are the main accused. The four co-accused who were vicariously liable for the act of the petitioners have already beers allowed bail by this Court. In the circumstances of the case, the facts that a cross complaint has been lodged against the petitioners wherein the accused have been summoned and bailed out does not make out a case for the grant of bail to the main accused. For what has been stated above, without making any expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of bail to the petitioners. M. Y. H. Bail refused.