1989 PLP 844 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 844 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 844 (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 1989 PLP 844 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 844 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Statutory ground‑‑Accused in jail for more than 2‑1/2 years‑‑Trial not yet started‑‑Accused already acquitted in cases referred to by Trial Court while refusing bail on a statutory ground‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Zafar Yasin for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Zafar Yasin for the State. The petition for bail moved on behalf of the petitioner alongwith his co accused on merits was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10‑2‑1987. However, all of his co‑accused were allowed bail. In that it was noted, it also does not appear from the tenor of the F.I.Rs. that there was any previous criminal or civil litigation between the parties. Learned counsel for both the parties have rather stated that they are related inter se. It will be too early to say at this stage as to which party was the aggressor and so also it would not be proper to say whether the occurrence was the result of pre‑meditation by any party or was a chance encounter. Looking from the number of injuries suffered by both the parties, it does not appear that anybody had upper hand, except of course, that from one side, one person unfortunately lost his life as a result of blunt weapon injury on the head'. Bail is now being sought by the petitioner on the ground of statutory period having passed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the Additional Sessions Judge who was seized of the case has since retired and the case has not been entrusted to any other Court for proceeding with the trial. The petitioner was arrested on 28‑7‑1986. Thus more than 2‑1/2 years have already passed and the trial has not even yet started. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already been acquitted in the cases referred to by learned Additional Sessions A Judge while refusing bail on the statutory ground. This petition, in the circumstances, is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. twenty‑five thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali. SA./M‑1151/L Bail allowed.