1988 P Cr (PLP)
INTIZAR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | INTIZAR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 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: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (INTIZAR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdur Rashid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Deceased mercilessly beaten over land dispute‑‑Twenty‑two injuries given to deceased resulting his instantaneous death‑‑Merely because accused had no motive against deceased, held, would not per se constitute any ground for grant of bail‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Wafadar Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Deceased mercilessly beaten over land dispute‑‑Twenty‑two injuries given to deceased resulting his instantaneous death‑‑Merely because accused had no motive against deceased, held, would not per se constitute any ground for grant of bail‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Mian Abdur Rashid for Petitioner. Wafadar Khan for the State. Intizar Khan petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 148 and 302/149 of the P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. version is that on 17‑5‑1987 at 12‑15 at night, the petitioner and his co‑accused, namely, Qasim, Punnoo, Ali Nawaz, Bashir, Mst. Parveen and Mst. Asia, all armed with hatchets and Sotas, caused injuries to Muhammad Siddique deceased, as a result of which he died at the spot. A land dispute between the deceased and his brother Qasim and Punnoo accused is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not shown to have any motive against the deceased and he has been falsely implicated for the reason that he was a witness against Mahboob Khan (complainant in the present case) in case F.I.R. No. 288 of 1983, under sections 379 and 440 of the P.P.C. It is further submitted that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel in the light of material available on the record. The mere fact that the petitioner had no motive against the deceased, per se, would not constitute any ground for the grant of bail. The post‑mortem report reveals that the deceased was given merciless beating resulting in instantaneous death. He had 22 injuries on his person. In the circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for the grant of bail. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.A./I‑43/L Petition dismissed.