1986 P Cr (PLP)
AMIR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | AMIR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (AMIR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hussain Chachhar for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Admittedly petitioner empty‑handed and no injury to deceased attributed to him‑ Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Aslam Chatha for the Complainant. Abdul Waheed for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Hussain Chachhar for Petitioners. Muhammad Aslam Chatha for the Complainant. Abdul Waheed for the State. Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985. Amir petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and his brother Amin under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The allegations are that on 10th May, 1985 at about 3 p.m. The petitioner was empty‑handed and his brother Amin armed with a pistol confronted Jaffar deceased in the street. Amir petitioner exhorted his co‑accused to kill the deceased, upon which he fired twice hitting his chest as a result of which he died at the spot.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the petitioner was empty‑handed and no injury to the deceased has been attributed to him. Only a proverbial Lalkara has been attributed to him. In the circumstances, I feel inclined; to the view, that a case A for his enlargement is made out, I therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty ‑Magistrate, Okara. S.G.D. Bail allowed.