1990 PLP 299 (SCMR)
GHULAM AKBAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 299 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM AKBAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 299 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 299 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 299 (SCMR) (GHULAM AKBAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sajjad Raza Jaferi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Asim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th September, 1989.
- USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 15‑8‑1989, arising out a bail matter of Ghulam Akbar petitioner who alongwith Riaz Hussain was charged under section 307/34, P.P.C. for twice firing at Ghulam Shabbir and causing him a number of fire‑arm injuries all over his body. The motive for the offence was to take revenge of Sohanra, father of the petitioner who was killed by Ghulam Shabbir the injured P.W. The petitioner was arrested on 19‑5‑1989 and a pistol with which he committed the offence was recovered from him. Application for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate on 21‑6‑1989 and thereafter by the Addl. District Judge on 10‑7‑1989. His subsequent petition for bail before the High Court was also dismissed vide impugned order. We have heard the counsel for petitioner and have gone through findings of the Courts below. The petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. and after his arrest a pistol i.e. the weapon of offence with which he is stated to have effectively fired at Ghulam Shabbir, was recovered from 'him.. The motive for the offence is also there. Under the Circumstances we do not consider him as entitled to the grant of bail at this stage.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 15‑8‑1989, passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 867‑B of 1989). ‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused was directly charged in F.I.R. and after his arrest a pistol with which he allegedly fired effectively at his victim was recovered from him‑‑‑Motive for offence was also present‑‑‑Bail was refused and petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 15‑8‑1989, arising out a bail matter of Ghulam Akbar petitioner who alongwith Riaz Hussain was charged under section 307/34, P.P.C. for twice firing at Ghulam Shabbir and causing him a number of fire‑arm injuries all over his body. The motive for the offence was to take revenge of Sohanra, father of the petitioner who was killed by Ghulam Shabbir the injured P.W. The petitioner was arrested on 19‑5‑1989 and a pistol with which he committed the offence was recovered from him. Application for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate on 21‑6‑1989 and thereafter by the Addl. District Judge on 10‑7‑1989. His subsequent petition for bail before the High Court was also dismissed vide impugned order. We have heard the counsel for petitioner and have gone through findings of the Courts below. The petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. and after his arrest a pistol i.e. the weapon of offence with which he is stated to have effectively fired at Ghulam Shabbir, was recovered from 'him.. The motive for the offence is also there. Under the Circumstances we do not consider him as entitled to the grant of bail at this stage. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. N.H.Q./G‑245/S Petition dismissed.