1987 PLP 3176 (MLD)
AKHTAR HUSSAIN alias QULLA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 3176 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | AKHTAR HUSSAIN alias QULLA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 3176 (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 1987 PLP 3176 (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: 1987 PLP 3176 (MLD) (AKHTAR HUSSAIN alias QULLA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.D. Tahir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1360), Ss. 302, 307 & 148/149--Bail, grant of--Accused armed with revolver yet not causing any injury to deceased--Counter case for murder of companion of accused also registered--Accused not present at spot according to statements of witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C.--Bail granted in circumstances. M. Salim Shad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M.D. Tahir for Petitioner. M. Salim Shad for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Akhtar Hussain alias Qulla petitioner in case under section 302/'307/148/149, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Factory Area, Lahore vide F.I.R. No. 372/86 dated 20-12-1986.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and others launched murderous assault and caused the death of Javed Iqbal and also one of their companions Muhammad Jamil in the area of main bazar Chungi Amar Siddhu, P.S. Factory Area, Lahore. As far the petitioner it has been alleged that he was armed with a revolver and shouted that they will not only get the shop vacated but will also not spare the complainant and others.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased; that the story of the prosecution that the petitioner's party, had killed Muhammad Jamil one of their companions in the occurrence is false; that the counter case with-regard to the murder of Muhammad Jamil has been registered against Muhammad Iqbal complainant, his son Javed Iqbal deceased and others. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that according to the F.I.R lodged--Muhammad Tanvir v. State by Muhammad Iqbal, father of the deceased, the petitioner although armed with a revolver had not caused any injury to Javed Iqbal an that Javed Iqbal was murdered by a companion of the petitioner; that Muhammad Jamil one of the companions of Akhtar Hussain petitioner was also killed during the occurrence and that a counter case ha A been registered against Muhammad Iqbal complainant, Javed Iqbal deceased and others for the murder of Muhammad Jamil and the Javed Ashiq and Gulshan, the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R. have stated in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. For what has been said above, I feel that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner has been made out. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Model Town, Lahore. S.A./A-195/L Bail granted.