1989 PLP 4979 (MLD)
MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4979 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4979 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4979 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4979 (MLD) (MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Munawar Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused named in F.I.R., fired effectively at deceased with .12 bore gun‑‑Occurrence witnessed by independent witnesses‑‑Prosecution story corroborated by medical evidence‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Sh. Muhammad Islam for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused named in F.I.R., fired effectively at deceased with .12 bore gun‑‑Occurrence witnessed by independent witnesses‑‑Prosecution story corroborated by medical evidence‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Mian Munawar Hussain for Petitioner. Sh. Muhammad Islam for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him with Police Station Raiwind, under section 302/148/149 PPC vide FIR dated 28‑10‑1987. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 28‑10‑1988, the petitioner alongwith five others co‑accused committed the murderous assault on Ata Muhammad. The petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun and fired at Ata Muhammad hitting him as well. It is contended by learned‑counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution assertion is that the deceased was fired at successively by the two co‑accused of the petitioner yet he did not fall on the ground which indicates that the story as set up by the prosecution is false. Submits that there was blackening on the injury of the person of the deceased which shows that it was fired from close range and in such circumstances three persons were firing one after the other, would not be possible. The petition has been opposed by learned counsel for the Sate.
2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the file. The petitioner is named in the FIR. He was armed with .12 bore gun which he effectively used hitting the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by independent persons as well. Prima facie there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story which finds corroboration from the medical evidence as well. In these circumstances I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. S.A./M‑1485/L Bail refused.