1984 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 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: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Sultan Alam for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426-Sentence, suspension of-Petitioners responsible for effective firing at prosecution witness and thereby injuring him
Concession of bail refused, in circumstance.
S. 426-Sentence, suspension of-Petitioners responsible for in effective firing and for causing simple injuries to witnesses with dangs-Bail allowed, in circumstances. Akhtar Masood for the State. Sh. Farooq and Ch. Mehboob for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application under section 426, Cr. P. C. for suspending the execution of the sentence awarded to the petitioners/appellants under sec tion 307/149, P. P. C: by a learned Magistrate Section 30, Multan.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press for the bail of ziladar and Muhammad Yusaf petitioners at this stage. So far as the other petitioners are concerned, he argued that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that they have committed an offence punishable under section 307, P. P. C.
3. As against this, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the commission of an offence punishable under section 307, P. P. C. has been proved beyond reasonable doubts against the petitioners/appellants and they have been sentenced to 7 years' R. I. and as such they are not entitled to the conces sion of bail.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that Muhammad Yasin and Liaqat, petitioners were armed with gun, they fired at Ghulam-Mohyud-Din and caused injuries on his leg. So far as Muhammad Hanif petitioner is concerned, he allegedly caused simple injury with dang on the person of Bashir P. W. So far as Sultan and Muhammad Aslam petitioners are concerned, they had allegedly caused injuries on the person of Mushtaq with dang and wrong side of the hatchet respectively. I find that Mushtaq received one grievous injury but the same has not been specifically attributed to Sultan Ahmad or Muhammad Aslam. As for Abdur Razzaq petitioner, the allegation against him is that of an ineffective firing. Be that as it may, the fact remains there, that Muhammad Yasin and Liaqat petitioners had fired at Ghulam Mohy ud-Din and injured him. To my mind their are not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Without making any expression lest it may prejudice the case of either party I suspend the execution of the sentence awarded to Muhammad Hanif, Sultan Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam and Abdul Razzaq petitioners/ appellants and admit them to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of tote Assistant Commissioner, Multan. S. G. D. Order accordingly.