1993 P Cr (PLP)
EITBAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | EITBAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (EITBAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-B
Plea urged on behalf of accused had not been taken in bail application-- Accused was named in the F.I.R. and was arrested on the spot with fire-arm injuries on his person
Judgment & Decree
Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioner. This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.2014-B of 1993 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.2015-B of 1993 moved by Eitbar Khan petitioner.
2. The prosecution case is that the police received a secret information that Ahmad Nawaz Barbari, a proclaimed offender alongwith his companions was present at Dhok Teetra, The police formed a raiding party and proceeded .towards that place and encircled the Dhok in question. Ahmad Nawaz Barbari and his companions opened firing with Klashnikov at the police party. They also used rocket launcher and hand-grenades in the occurrence. The police party also resorted to firing resulting in the death of Ahmad Nawaz Barbari and injuries to Eitbar Khan petitioner, Faiz Ullah and Tariq. The petitioner was caught red-handed. A hand-grenade and 150 bullets of Klashnikov were recovered from his possession.
3. He has applied for bail on the grounds that he has been involved falsely and was not present at the spot at the relevant time. He has also denied having suffered injuries during the alleged occurrence.
4. To verify the above assertion, judicial record was summoned. His medico-legal report exists on record showing the presence of fire-arm injuries on his person. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had suffered those injuries while he was passing near the spot.
5. I am not impressed by this contention because in the bail application moved by him no such plea has been taken. Since he is named in the F.I.R. and was arrested at the spot with fire-arm injuries on his person, he is not considered entitled to bail at this stage. Accordingly the bail applications moved by him are dismissed. N.H.Q./E-18/L Bail refused.