1998 PLP 454 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 454 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 454 (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 1998 PLP 454 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 454 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. War, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. M. Anwar Ghuman, Advocate for the State.
- Date of hearing: 10th September, 1995.'
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 19‑6‑1995 of the Lahore High Court passed in Crl. Misc. No. 2061‑B/95). ‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused had allegedly made an ineffective firing and no injury was attributed to him during the occurrence‑‑ Case against accused, therefore, needed further inquiry‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and accused was admitted to bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.
On 8th of September, 1994 at 6-00 p.m., a case under section 302/148/149 P.P.C. was registered on the statement of Ahmad Khan against Muhammad, Muhammad Sher, Muhammad Ramzan, Hayat Muhammad, Sher Bahadur, Ahmed Nawaz, Munir and Atta Muhammad with Police Station Bachhran, District Mianwali. The accused while armed with .12 bore guns attacked and killed Muhammad Sultan at the spot. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner Muhammad was not given any effective role in the commission of crime. He was, therefore, entitled to the grant of bail. Bail application was opposed by the learned State Counsel. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and reading the record with care, we are of the opinion that a case for interference has been made out because no injury was attributed to the petitioner during the occurrence. It is alleged that he ineffectively fired. This was a case of further inquiry. The petitioner, is accordingly, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Mianwali by converting his petition into appeal. The petition, thus, succeeds and is allowed. N.H.Q./M.3142/S Leave granted.