1986 PLP 2666 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SALIM alias CH EEMA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2666 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALIM alias CH EEMA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2666 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2666 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2666 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SALIM alias CH EEMA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Sohail Dar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 22nd July, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑F. I. R. recorded on basis of disclosure made by accused while in custody in another case‑‑Nothing recovered in consequence of disclosure made by accused‑‑F.I.R. recorded four months after occurrence‑‑Only evidence collected against accused was of extra‑judicial confession made by two co‑accused‑‑According to confessional statements only injury inflicted to deceased was caused by one co‑accused‑‑Another F.I.R. had already been recorded in another district regarding same incident‑‑No reasonable grounds existing to believe that accused had committed murder‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. C.M. Latif for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Sohail Dar for Petitioner. C.M. Latif for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd July, 1986. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered at Police Station, Misri Shah, Lahore, on 5th April, 1986, under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 4th December, 1985. F.I.R. has been recorded on the basis of a disclosure said to have been made by the petitioner before Muhammad Saleem Beg, S.I. while in custody in another case. Nothing was recovered in consequence of the disclosure made by the petitioner.
3. Apart from the facts given in the F.I.R. which, as noted above, contains, the disclosures said to, have been made by the petitioner, the only evidence collected during investigation, according to learned counsel for the State, is, that Sarwar and Ilyas, the two co‑accused of the petitioner, are said to have made extra‑judicial confessions on 25th February, 1986, before Booti and Amar Nath, implicating the petitioner as well. Even according to the confessional statements, the only injury said to have been inflicted to the deceased was caused by Sarwar.
4. It may be of interest to note here that regarding this very occurrence an F.I.R. was also recorded at Police Station City, Sialkot, on 8th December, 1985, on the statement of Nand Lal, a brother of Babu Lai deceased, and in that, it has been stated that some unknown persons had brought his brother Babu Lai in an injured condition to his house on a Suzuki Wagon on 5th December, 1985 and before leaving they had informed Manzur Hussain and Allah Wasaya, his co‑villagers, that Babu Lal had suffered bullet injury during some dispute in the cinema.
5. The facts noted above, which have been admitted by the learned counsel for the State as well, do not make out reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had committed the murder. He is, therefore, directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing a bail bond to the sum of Rs.20,000, with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner (City), Lahore. H.A.K. Bail allowed.