1983 P Cr (PLP)
ABID AND ANQTHFR-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ABID AND ANQTHFR-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 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 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (ABID AND ANQTHFR-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Lai Khan Baloch for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497-Bail-(Murder-case)-Only evidence, collected by Police against petitioners comprising of last seen-Petitioners allowed bail, in circumstance.-[Evidence]. Tariq Javed for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for bail on behalf of 4Abid and Dost Muhammad petitioners in a case under section 302/364734, P. P. C. registered at Police Station Chiniot vide F. I. R. No. 117, dated 22-3-1982.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and Mst. Sabiban in furtherance of their common intention abducted Farrukh Iqbal and thereafter throttled him to death.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no evidence to connect the petitioners with the murder. Mr. Tariq Javed learned Stat counsel after going through the police file and consulting Muhammad Rashid A. S. I. told that there is no ocular evidence, no evidence of extra-judicial confession and no evidence of recovery against the petitioner and the only evidence collected by the police during the investigation is that of last seen.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that in view of the statement made by the learned State counsel, the matter requires further inquiry. The petitioners are, therefore, allowed bail subject to the furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot. Bail granted.