1987 P Cr (PLP)
BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 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: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Akmal Salimi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th July, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148 & 302/307/452/149, P.P.C.‑‑Accused allegedly caused simple injury with gun‑‑Detained in jail for about 14 months-‑Co‑accused causing simple injuries already allowed bail‑‑One of co‑accused injured in same occurrence‑‑Bail allowed to accused in circumstances. Nisar A. Saeed for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for bail on behalf of Bashir Ahmad petitioner in a case under section 302/307/452/149/148, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Chak Baidi vide F.I.R. No. 51, dated 29‑5‑1981.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner with six others in furtherance of the common intention launched murderous assault upon Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Mansha deceased, on 29‑5‑1981 at Degerwela in the area of Chak Asadullahpur of Police Station, Chak Baidi. As far the petitioner it has been alleged that he was armed with a gun and caused simple injuries on the person of Asghar P.H'
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co‑accused namely Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Afzal who allegedly had caused simple injuries to a witness have already been allowed bail by the Sessions Judge. The learned State counsel has seriously opposed this application.
4. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner who had allegedly caused simple injury with gun is in the jail for the last about 14 months and that the co‑accused who had caused simple injuries to P.W. but with different weapons have already been allowed bail. I further find that the co‑accused namely Muhammad Jamil was also injured in the same occurrence and received fire‑arm injuries. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the petitioner is allowed bail. Accordingly he is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C., Sahiwal. S. A./4340/L Bail allowed.