1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hussain Aziz Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Accused was not only named in the F.I.R. but also in the dying declaration made by the deceased
Accused was alleged to have gone to the cattleshed of the deceased after making preparation by carrying a rifle and on his instigation his co -accused had fired a shot at the deceased
Judgment & Decree
Mian Abdul Qaddus for the Complainant. Ch. Asghar Ali for the State. Date of hearing: 8th November, 1993. Muhammad Mushtaq petitioner alongwith two others is charged with the murder of Muhammad Yusuf deceased with fire-arms.
2. As per prosecution allegations, the petitioner accompanied by his co -accused went to cattleshed of Muhammad Wakeel complainant and raised a Lalkara exhorting his companions to teach a lesson to Muhammad Yusuf deceased for demanding peter engine, in consequence of which Muhammad Habib co-accused fired at him which later on resulted in his death.
3. Bail is sought on the ground that only Lalkara is attributed to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. He is alleged to have gone to the cattleshed of the deceased after making preparation by carrying a rifle. On his instigation, his co-accused fired a shot at the deceased. He is also named in the dying declaration made by the deceased. Motive is also attributed to him. In these circumstances, I do not consider him entitled to bail and accordingly, dismiss his application. N.H.Q./M-1503/L Bail refused.