2001 PLP 1102 (YLR)
SHAHID NAWAZ alias BAWA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1102 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and M. Naeemullah Khan Sherwani, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHID NAWAZ alias BAWA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1102 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1102 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and M. Naeemullah Khan Sherwani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1102 (YLR) (SHAHID NAWAZ alias BAWA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner,
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/148/149
Petitioner eras the main accused who had caused the fatal blow to the deceased
Co-accused who were granted bail had not been challaned by the police
Trial was in progress and five witnesses had been examined and other witnesses were present for examination
Bail was declined on merits as well as on statutory ground.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. No. 1342/M of 2001 Allowed. Main Case Petitioner Shahid Nawaz seeks bail on two-fold grounds, one on merit and second on statutory ground.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner tired a shot with his rifle which hit the right ear of Ghulam Abbas and went through and through the left eye. The, second tire was made by Khalid Hussain with gun on the son of the complainant which also hit near the right ear. The third tire made by Bashir Ahmad too hit the right ear of Ghulam Abbass Kifayat Ullah also resorted to firing. Ghulam Abbass succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The motive was that of old murders. Some accused were also nominated for conspiracy.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, petitioner is behind the bars for last 2 years and 8 months, most of the adjournments were sought by learned counsel for the complainant on one pretext or the other, co-accused of the petitioner have been allowed bail and that apart from subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. case of the petitioner is also covered by the third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submit that five accused were not challaned by the Police and now after the statement of the complainant they have been summoned, Further submits that the case is fixed for evidence, five witnesses have been examined and most of the adjournments have taken place on the request of learned counsel for the defence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The co-accused who were granted bail have not been challaned by the Police. Petitioner is the main accused He caused accused the fatal blow. Trial is in progress rather five witnesses have been examined. Even the trial is fixed for today and the witnesses are present. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to allow bail either on merits or statutory ground. Dismissed H.B.T./S-254/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail declined.