1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQSOOD MAI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQSOOD MAI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQSOOD MAI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar M. Adam Khan for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Ahmad Malik for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/148/149/452/109‑ Cancellation of bail‑‑Charge against accused was that she instigated her brother to kill deceased‑‑No evidence available against accused for having instigated the other accused‑‑Accused was not present at spot and had not physically participated in the occurrence‑‑Accused being a woman, her case fell within proviso to S.497, Cr.P.C. and Trial Court exercising its discretion had given sound and cogent reasons in support of its order for granting pre‑arrest bail‑ Interference declined by High Court. M. Akbar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar M. Adam Khan for Petitioner. Manzoor Ahmad Malik for Respondent. M. Akbar for the State. This is an application for the cancellation of bail granted to Mst. Maqsood Mai respondent by Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, vide order, dated 17‑10‑1988 in a case under section 302/307/148/149/452/109, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Ahmadpur East, vide F.I.R. No. 251/88, dated 27‑8‑1988. ,
2. The prosecution case is that at the instigation of Mst. Maqsood Mai respondent, her brothers Mumtaz, Ghulam Fareed, Abdul Malik and uncle Muhammad Ramzan and 5 others committed house trespass after having made preparation of hurt and caused the death of Muhammad Ramzan and injuries to Gul Muhammad P.W.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Maqsood Mai being real cause of trouble and having instigated the co‑accused to do away with the deceased, was not entitled to the concession of pre‑arrest bail. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that there is no evidence of Mst. Maqsood Mai having instigated his brothers and others to kill the deceased; that she was not present on the spat and had not physically participated in the occurrence; that she being a woman, her case falls within proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the trial Court has exercised its discretion and given sound and cogent reasons in support of its order granting pre‑arrest bail to the respondent. It is well‑settled that once bail after arrest/pre‑arrest is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction then strong grounds would be required for interference with the same, which I do not see in the case in hand. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed. M.Y.H./M‑1412/L Petition dismissed.