1985 PLP 1369 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1369 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1369 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1369 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1369 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Naveed Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Grant of bail--Name of accused not mentioned in F.I.R.--No eye-witnesses of occurrence Only recovery of Chhuri from accused not stained with blood and evidence of extra-judicial confession--Case held, fit for bail. M.I. Memon, Addl. A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for bail in the case registered under section 302, P. P. C. at Police Station Shah Faisal Colony on 12-3-1984. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case that one Zahoor-ud-Din was a tenant of complainant Iftikhar Mohiuddin. On 12-3-1984 complainant was informed by his Shaista that there was commotion outside the house. He went and saw that Zahooruddin was lying in the Gallery in injured condition. He was not able to talk. Iftikhar Mohiuddin went and lodged report in which he stated that some unknown persons have committed murder of Zahooruddin. Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed learned counsel for the applicant has contended that this is an unwitnessed incident and there is no other evidence excepting that one Churri has been secured from the present applicant. Mr. M.I. Memon, Additional Advocate-General has no objection to the grant of bail. He states that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and Chhuri was also not blood-stained. The name of the applicant does not appear in the F.I. R. and there is no eye-witness of this incident. There is only evidence for production of non-blood-stained Chhuri and extra-judicial confession before police and other persons. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for bail. Accordingly I admit the applicant to bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S. A. Petition accepted.