1985 PLP 1225 (MLD)
ASHIQ SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1225 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | ASHIQ SHAH — 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 1225 (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 1225 (MLD)?
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: 1985 PLP 1225 (MLD) (ASHIQ SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Shahryar for Petitioner.
- Khan Talib Baluch for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2332-B of 1983).
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/148/149--Bail--Fatal injury not attributed to accused--Investigating Officer finding accused having not taken part in occurrence--Case, held, was of further enquiry, bail allowed in circumstances. Ghulam Haider v. The State 1970 P Cr. L J 690 and 1974 PCr.LJ 450 rel. Sh. Afzal Hussain for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Talib Baluch for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2332-B of 1983). Sh. Afzal Hussain for the State. This order will dispose of the bail applications of Ashiq Shah son of Bahadur Shah, Muhammad son of Sardara, Sultan son of Alam, Alam son of Mahram and Amir son of Alam. (Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 2204-B, 2212-B and 2332-B of 1983).
2. The petitioners alongwith 17 others stand charged with the murder of Abdullah and Manak deceased and murderously assaulting Mst. Bevi P. W. with fire-arms and sticks on 20-6-1982.
3. Bail is urged on the ground that no fatal injury is attributed to the petitioners. They were armed with sticks and the injuries which proved fatal were caused by fire-arms. It is further stated that the D.S.P. who carried out the investigation of the case came to the conclusion that the petitioners had not participated in the actual occurrence but may have hatched a conspiracy with the other co-accused for committing the offence. He further states that there is no positive evidence to prove the conspiracy but there was a general rumour about the conspiracy of the petitioners with the other co-accused regarding the commission of the offence. .
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail. According to him the petitioners have not been shown in column No. 2 and have been challaned alongwith the other co-accused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon Ghulam Haider v. The State 1970 P Cr. L J 690 and 1974 P Cr. L J 450 to show that even if the Investigating Officer refrains from taking final responsibility for guilt or innocence of the accused and challans him the accused could take due benefit of such opinion.
6. As admittedly no fatal injury is attributed to the present petitioners and the D.S.P. who conducted the investigation has on the basis of the evidence recorded by him opined that the petitioners had not participated in the occurrence. I, therefore, considering it to be a / case of further inquiry admit the petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Twenty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. , Sargodha. S. A. Bail allowed.