1995SCMR 1143 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR 1143 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR 1143 (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 1995SCMR 1143 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR 1143 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. '
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th July, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 26‑4‑1994, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No.1353/B/1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan' (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Deputy Superintendent of Police (Legal) and the S.P. had not agreed with the finding of the last Investigating Officer regarding involvement of accused in the case and he had been shown in Column No. 2 of the Challan‑‑‑Discretionary order of High Court in circumstances did not call for any interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan' (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Deputy Superintendent of Police (Legal) and the S.P. had not agreed with the finding of the last Investigating Officer regarding involvement of accused in the case and he had been shown in Column No. 2 of the Challan‑‑‑Discretionary order of High Court in circumstances did not call for any interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. ' Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th July, 1994. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J‑‑‑Muhammad Riaz petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby his petition for cancellation of bail allowed to the respondent by the High Court vide order dated 20‑6‑1993, was dismissed. 2.In an occurrence which took place on 9‑2‑1993, at 11‑00 p.m. Abid alias Goga, brother of Abdur Rashid respondent ‑fired his carbine at Mushtaq hitting him in the chest and neck while the respondent's fire hit him on the right arm and he succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
3. The respondent was admitted to bail on the ground that he was found innocent during investigation by as many as four Police Officers including two officers of the rank of D.S.P. and S.P. The petitioner moved an application for cancellation of bail which was dismissed. Hence this petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that in the last investigation the respondent has been found involved and challaned, alongwith his co‑accused, therefore, he is no more entitled to enjoy the concession of bail. We have considered the above submissions in the light of material available on the record from which it becomes clear that D.S.P. (Legal) and the S.P. had disagreed with the findings of the last Investigating Officer and the respondent has been shown in Column No.2 of the challan. In the circumstances we do not consider it a fit case for interference with the discretionary order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑2201/S Leave refused.