1989 PLP 4196 (MLD)
RIAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4196 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | RIAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4196 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4196 (MLD)?
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: 1989 PLP 4196 (MLD) (RIAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yawar Ali Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑Bail‑‑Deceased suffered a firearm injury at the hands of accused as a result of which he died at the spot‑ Part attributed to accused was that he joined his co‑accused in raising a joint Lalkara‑‑Accused was admitted to bail by Trial Court but on application moved by complainant bail was cancelled‑‑No incident pointed out from which it could be inferred that accused had abused concession of bail in any manner‑‑Accused admitted to bail. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Mere fact that co‑accused had absconded would not be a ground for cancellation of bail of accused. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Mere fact that co‑accused had absconded would not be a ground for cancellation of bail of accused. Ch. Muhammad Yawar Ali Khan for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. Riaz petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and two others under section 302/34 of the PPC.
2. In the occurrence which took place on 7‑8‑1987 at 6.30 p.m. Ismail deceased suffered a fire‑arm injury at the hands of co‑accused Khalid as a result of which he died at the spot. The part attributed to the petitioner is that he joined his co‑accused Khalid and Shahbaz in raising a joint Lalkara. The petitioner was admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but on an application moved by Shoukat Ali complainant the same was cancelled vide order dated 6‑2 1989.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ground which weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge for cancelling the bail was that co‑accused Khalid had absconded and his absconsion was sufficient threat to the complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be punished for the fault of his co‑accused. The learned Addl. A.‑G. is not in a position to defend the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He does not oppose the prayers for bail.
4. I have considered `the submissions made at the Bar. In the impugned order no incident has been pointed out from which it could be inferred that the petitioner has abused the concession in any manner. The mere fact that the co -accused of the petitioner had absconded does not constitute any ground for the cancellation of the bail of the petitioner. In the circumstances I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Jaranwala. M.Y.H./R‑156/L Bail granted.