1991 PLP 289 (SCMR)
SARWARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 289 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Naimuddin, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | SARWARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 289 (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 1991 PLP 289 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Naimuddin, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 289 (SCMR) (SARWARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh.Zafar Mahmud, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1990.
- Sh.Zafar Mahmud, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, dated 8-5-1990 in Criminal Review No.1 of 1990).
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/109--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Bail--Accused after having been apprehended by police had instigated his co-accused to get him released whereupon co-accused had fired at deceased--Specific role had, thus, been ascribed to accused whose bail application had been rejected by High Court by means of a detailed order and his review application was also rejected--Prima facie case was not of further inquiry--Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 8‑5‑1990 of the Peshawar High, Court.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the report of the incident was lodged by Habibur Rehman, Head Constable, on 22‑2‑1990 wherein he stated that an informer had disclosed that the petitioner along with others was busy in gambling. A raid was conducted by the police and they found the petitioner and others playing gambling. In order to arrest, they were encircled but all of them started running. Riaz Head Constable arrested the petitioner. The petitioner called out Gul Khan that he had been arrested and he should get him released. Thereupon Gul Khan pulled out a pistol from underneath his shirt and fired a shot at Muhammad Riaz deceased one after the other Riaz was fatally injured and the petitioner decamped. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner. The petitioner had only requested Gul Khan for help, and he did not instigate him to make fire at the deceased. Specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner. The High Court in its detailed order rejected his bail application. A review application was also moved which was also rejected. As the petitioner was apprehended by the police, he instigated his co‑accused to get him released whereupon the co‑accused Gul Khan had fired at the deceased. Prima facie it cannot, therefore, be argued that it is a case of further inquiry. The petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./S‑568/S Leave refused.