PCRLJ 1992

1992 P Cr (PLP)

BASHIR AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4777‑B of 1989, decided on 5th May, 1991.
Honorable Judges
Ijaz Nisar, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Ijaz Nisar, J
Parties BASHIR AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 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 1992 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (BASHIR AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/148/149‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Three persons of accused (respondents) side were also murdered on the same date and in the same village for which a case was registered on the report of one of the accused (respondents) against petitioners and others in which all the accused were on bail‑‑‑Both the occurrences according to police were part of the same transaction‑‑‑Second result of the investigation had come about 1‑1/2 years after the occurrence‑‑‑Discretion exercised by Sessions Court in admitting accused (respondents) to bail was not considered to be improper in circumstances‑‑‑Petition for cancellation of bail was accordingly dismissed. Zafar Pasha Chaudhry for the Complainant.

Judgment & Decree

Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner. Zafar Pasha Chaudhry for the Complainant. This is an application for cancellation of bail of Wazir Ali, Qamar Abbas, Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Idrees, Muhammad Iqbal, Sardar Ali and Muhammad Khalid respondents in case F.I.R. No.250 of 1987 Police Station, Naushehra Virkan, District Gujranwala under section 148/302/307/ 149, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is that the respondents alongwith their companions while carrying klashanikov, step‑guns, rifle, etc. attacked Ahmad Ali deceased on 2‑8‑1987 and caused his death. They are also alleged to have made a murderous assault on Bashir Ahmad P.W. The occurrence was sequal to criminal litigation between the parties.

3. The respondents were found innocent under section 302, P.P.C. and were challaned under section 148/307/149, P.P.C. but later, on the basis of another investigation they were also held guilty under section 302, P.P.C. They applied for bail and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order, dated 22‑6‑1989 admitted them to bail under section 302/149, P.P.C. in addition to the bail granted to them under section 307, P.P.C. by Magistrate section 30 on 19‑10‑1987.

4. Cancellation is sought on the grounds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had wrongly held that there was a cross‑version of the case and that the possibility of false implication of the respondents could not be ruled out. It is further contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in observing that there was a cross‑version of the case. The occurrence in which three persons of the respondents' side were killed was separate from the occurrence in question and had taken place at different time and place: It is also stated that in view of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. supported by the crime branch the respondents were not entitled to the concession of bail.

5. As already stated above three persons of the respdondents' side were also murdered on the said date and in the same village for which case F.I.R. No.251 of 1987 was registered at Police Station Naushehra Virkan on the report of Wazir Ali respondent against Bashir Ahmad petitioner and others. All the accused of the said case are stated to be on bail. According to Mr. Zafar Qureshi, S.P. Crimes Branch both the occurrence were part of the same transaction taking place between 10 a.m. and 3‑00 p.m. The Places of A occurrences were situated in the same vicinity at a distance of about 4/5 acres from each other. The second result of the investigation came about 1‑1/2 years after the occurrence. The accused of the case F.I.R. No.351 of 1987 got registered by Wazir Ali respondent against Bashir petitioner etc. are on bail. In the above circumstances, I do not think that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had exercised his discretion improperly. Therefore, I do not feel persuaded to interfere with this order and accordingly dismiss the application. N.H.Q./B-5/L Petition dismissed.