1989 PLP 2859 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD LATIF alias BHOPA Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2859 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF alias BHOPA Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2859 (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 1989 PLP 2859 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2859 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD LATIF alias BHOPA Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Latif Khokhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34--Bail--Unwitnessed crime as nobody had seen the commission of the offence during the dead hours of the night--Accused belonged to same village where victims of crime resided Case falling within purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.--Accused admitted to bail. M. Irshad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mst. Aysha and her daughter Mst. Sughra were killed during the dead hours of the night. Nobody had seen the commission of the offence and, therefore, it was an unwitnessed crime and the factum of murders also came to light during the late hour of the day.
2. During the investigation in this case, Muhammad Inayat, Muhammad Saeed and Sabir Hussain were arrested alongwith one Arshad and Muhammad Latif, petitioner. As far as Arshad Hussain is concerned, I have dealt with his bail application (vide 'Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1385/13 of 1989).
3. As far as Muhammad Latif, petitioner, is concerned, his case is at par with that of Arshad Hussain. There is no evidence connecting him with the commission of offence except that a plan to commit Haraba and murders was made at his shop by the main accused namely Muhammad Inayat, Muhammad Saeed and Sabir Hussain. The other piece of evidence against the petitioner is that he had pointed out the house of Mst. Sughra to the main culprits.
4. It will not be proper at this stage to comment upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice either side but suffice it would be to point out that the petitioner also belongs to the same village where the victims of crime resided. Accordingly, the case falls within the purview of section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C. I direct that .the petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, seized of the trial. M.Y.H./M-1391/1 Bail allowed.