1982 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1989) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1989) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- -- S. 498 -Hall- [Murder-case]-Petitioner allegedly armed with a hat chet-inflicting a blow on leg of deceased---Counsel for petitioner laying stress on fact of injuries found on leg being not incised wounds and prosecution riot having insisted as to hatchet being used with blunt side-State counsel unable to give arty satisfactory reply to argument of counsel for petitioner-Bail granted in circumstances.
- Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 24th March, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
C. M. Latif Rawn for A:-G. for the State. Kh. Muhammad Sharif for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
S. 498 -Hall- [Murder-case]-Petitioner allegedly armed with a hat chet-inflicting a blow on leg of deceased
Counsel for petitioner laying stress on fact of injuries found on leg being not incised wounds and prosecution riot having insisted as to hatchet being used with blunt side-State counsel unable to give arty satisfactory reply to argument of counsel for petitioner-Bail granted in circumstances. Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner. C. M. Latif Rawn for A:-G. for the State. Kh. Muhammad Sharif for the Complainant. Date of hearing : 24th March, 1979. The allegation against .the petitioner is that he was armed with hatchet and it is with this that he inflicted a blow on the leg of the deceas ed. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid great stress on the fact than the injuries found on the leg were not incised wounds and it is not the pro secution case that the hatchet was used with the blunt side.
2. Learned State Counsel has not been able to give any satisfactory reply to this argument. Hence, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the lik amount to the satisfaction of A, C., Gujranwala. Bail granted.