1992 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD PARVEZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD PARVEZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 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: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD PARVEZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- R.A. Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1800), S.302/34
Accused was named in the F.I.R. with a specific role in committing murder of deceased with mauser, which had been recovered at his instance
No opinion one way or the other about the genuineness or otherwise of the affidavits exonerating the accused could be given at such stage as the same would be determined by the Trial Court during trial
Complainant still levelled the allegation of murder against accused and case against him did not fall outside the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
R.A. Awan for Petitioner. Rana Maqbool Ahmad Khan for the Complainant. Asif Khalil for the State. Muhammad Parvaiz alias Peja, the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in the case registered against him and another under section 302/34, P.P.C. with Police Station Kahna; Lahore, vide F.I.R. No.178/91 dated 18-4-1991 by moving this petition before this Court.
2. The allegations arc that the petitioner-and Muhammad Ramzan while armed with mausers in furtherance of their common intention came to the house of Mst. Perveen in village Lakhoder on 18-4-1991. The petitioner asked her as to why she did not desist from talking with others whereupon she bounced upon him by saying that he had no concern with that. Both the accused started firing upon Mst. Parveen. She fell down and died on the spot.
3. It is contended that the eye-witnesses namely Imdad Hussain and Baber have sworn affidavits (Annexures `C' and `D') to disclose that they did not see the occurrence. Learned counsel argues that recovery witness also gave an affidavit that he did not sec the recovery of mauser at the instance of the petitioner. He, therefore, says that the case of the petitioner was that of further inquiry. Last contention is that the co-accused Muhammad Ramzan was allowed bail by the learned trial Judge under similar circumstances. Reliance in this behalf is placed on the order dated 10-9-1991 whereby the bail was refused to the petitioner while it was allowed to Muhammad Ramzan. Learned State counsel opposed the bail petition on the ground that the affidavits relied upon by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage,
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have seen the record with care. The petitioner is named with .a specific role in committing the murder of Mst. Parveen with mauser in the F.I.R. The weapon was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The genuineness or otherwise of the affidavits referred to above shall be determined by the learned trial Judge during trial. This is, of course not the stage to give opinion one way or the other on these documents. Mst. Azeem Bibi (first informant) still levels the allegation of murder against the petitioner. Case of the petitioner does not fall outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. No case for grant of bail to the petitioner has been made out by the learned counsel. In the circumstances the bail petition is dismissed with a direction that the learned trial Court may conclude the trial against the petitioner within next two months without fail. Office shall send a copy of this order to the learned trial Judge for compliance. N.H.Q./M-332/L Bail declined.