1989 P Cr (PLP)
ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 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: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik M. Afzal and Malik M. Aslam for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149‑‑Bail‑‑Accused though armed with a Lathi had not caused any injury to deceased and simply remained present‑‑No Lalkara was even attributed to accused‑‑Accused admitted to bail. Ch. M. Ashraf Akhtar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Malik M. Afzal and Malik M. Aslam for Petitioner. Ch. M. Ashraf Akhtar for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Allah Ditta petitioner in a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Barana, vide F.I.R. No. 47, dated 16‑4‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and others in furtherance of their common object, caused the death of Muhammad Sharif on 16‑4‑1987 in the area of Adda Sheikhan of Police Station Barana. As for the petitioner it has been alleged that he came alongwith the co -accused and remained present at the place of occurrence armed with a Lathi.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased. Learned counsel for the State has not controverted him.
4. I have considered the matter. I find that the petitioner although armed with a Lathi had not caused any injury to the deceased that he simply remained present and that even Lalkara has not been attributed to him. For what has been said above, I feel that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner has been made out. He will be released on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/City Magistrate, Jhang. M.Y.H./A‑675/L Bail allowed.