1987 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL LATIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | ABDUL LATIF‑‑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 Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL LATIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Allegedly all the three petitioners resorted to firing at the complainant party, nevertheless, nobody suffered even a scratch and firing proved in effective‑‑Complainant‑ party in a case registered against them, one month prior to the occurrence, were all bailed out‑‑Petitioners allowed bail, in circumstances. Riasat Ali for the Complainant. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Riasat Ali for the Complainant. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 18th January, 1987. Abdul Latif Khan and Hafeezullah Khan petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and another under section 307/34, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution version is that on 15‑10‑1986 at about Degarwela Abdul Latif and Hafeezullah petitioners armed with .12 bore guns and their father Abdul Sattar armed with a rifle, fired at the complainant and his companions, namely, Rab Nawaz and Muhammad Nawaz when they were gong towards the metalled road in a Jeep. None of them was hit by the fire. The motive alleged in the F.I.R. was that a month prior to the occurrence the complainant party had attacked Abdul Latif petitioner and a case under sections 148, 307, 324, 365, 342 and 382, P.P.C. was registered against them which was pending at the time of occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that if three persons armed with fire‑arms wanted to kill any one, nothing could prevent them from doing so. He submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and this case has been brought as a counter‑blast to pressurise the petitioners to withdraw the previous case. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the complainant has, however, opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that Abdul Latif petitioner is involved in three other cases and Hafeezullah in one case under sections 324 and 382, P.P.C.
4. I have gone through the relevant material. There is substance in the contention of the learned counsel that if three persons armed with fire arms wanted to cause injuries to the complainant‑party, they could conveniently do so, but nobody suffered even a scratch. It is a case of in effective firing. It is admitted that in the afore‑mentioned case registered one month earlier against the complainant‑party, all the accused are on bail. In the circumstances, a case for the enlargement of the petitioners is made out. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the .satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Isa Khel. S.G.D./A‑42/L Bail allowed.