1990SCMR1319 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AZAM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990SCMR1319 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZAM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1319 (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 1990SCMR1319 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1319 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AZAM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Raj, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing:26th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 6‑6‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1837/B of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/30'7/148/149/109‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused were named in F.I.R.‑‑‑Eye witnesses were prepared to support prosecution version‑‑‑Fact that six persons mentioned in F.I.R. had been found innocent by police was by itself not a sufficient ground at bail stage to cast doubt upon the participation of accused in the occurrence‑‑‑No case for bail, thus, was made out in circumstances‑‑‑Leave to appeal wars refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners were a arrested in a case registered under sections 302 and 307, read with section 148 and section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Saddar, Wazirabad. The allegations ,' , against the petitioners were that they together with a number of other persons formed an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of the common object of the said assembly they attacked the complainant party killing two persons and injuring four others. At the relevant time the petitioners were carrying fire‑arms.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that of the assailants mentioned in the F.I.R. six have been found innocent and for that reason they have not been arrested by the police. He contends that as the complainant party' has falsely implicated a number of innocent persons, its case against the petitioners has also become doubtful.
3. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel. The names of the petitioners find mention in the F.I.R. and there are a number of eye witnesses who are prepared to support the version given therein. The fact that six persons mentioned in the F.I.R. have been found innocent by the police is by itself not a sufficient ground at this stage to cast doubt upon the participation of the petitioners in the occurrence. In the circumstances no case for bail has been made out. The petition is dismissed. N.H.Q:/M‑1093/S Petition dismissed