1994 PLP 549 (SCMR)
SHER MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 549 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 549 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 549 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 549 (SCMR) (SHER MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Cr.P.L.A. No. 338‑L of 1993).
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr. P. No. 348‑L of 1993).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Cr. P. LA. No. 348‑L of 1993).
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993.
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mahtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Complainant (in Cr.P.L.A. No. 338‑L of 1993).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23‑6‑1993 passed in Cr.M. No. 888‑B/93). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Contentions that four out of six persons named in the F.I.R. as actual participants were found innocent during investigation and were released on bail by High Court and that the accused who according to the F.I.R. had fired at the deceased were found involved by the Investigating Officer only as abettors and not as actual participants of the occurrence, were not controverted on behalf of the complainant‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal in circumstances and the interim bail granted earlier to the accused was confirmed. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mahtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Complainant (in Cr.P.L.A. No. 338‑L of 1993). Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. for the State (in Cr.P. No. 338‑L of 1993).
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J‑‑‑This order shall dispose of the above two petitions which have been filed against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby petitioners Sher Muhammad and Khan were refused bail while it was allowed to respondents No. 1 to 4 in Cr.P No. 348‑L of 1993.
2. On the last date of hearing, interim bail was granted to petitioners (in Cr. P. No. 338‑L/93) with the following observations:‑
"Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as many as 6 persons were named in the FIR as actual participants in the assault but during investigation 4 of them were found innocent and they have since been released by the High Court. He further submits that the petitioners herein who according to the F.I.R. had fired at the deceased were found involved by the investigating officer but only as abettors and not actual participants in the occurrence. This position is not controverted by the learned counsel for the complainant but he submits that according to the promptly lodged F.I.R. a specific role has been attributed to the petitioners and a .12 bore gun was recovered from Sher Muhammad petitioner, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties I admit the petitioners to interim bail till the disposal of the main petition subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Jhang." The learned counsel besides the aforestated contentions already recorded also submitted that there have been four investigations in the case in which in the first investigation all accused were declared innocent, so was the result in the second investigation, but during the third investigation they were found guilty. However, in the fourth investigation the S.P. declared four persons as innocent and also was of the opinion that the petitioners (Sher Muhammad and Khan) were not present, but were involved in the case. In view of the observations made in the earlier order, we convert the petition into appeal, allow it and confirm the interim bail granted earlier.
3. There is no force in Cr.P. No. 348‑L/1993 which is dismissed. N.H.Q/S‑796/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.