1994 PLP 1777 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1777 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1777 (MLD)?
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 1777 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1777 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masood Mirza for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/324/109/34
Bail, grant of, Evidence on record did not show the accused had taken active part in tilt commission of the crime
Police had found the accused innocent during investigation
Case against accused, therefore, was one of further inquiry., Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner who has been arrested in pursuance of non-bailable warrants issue by the learned Additional Session Judge, Bhalwal on a complaint filed by Allah bakhsh under section 302/324/109/34,P.PC against the petitioner and other.
2. As per complaint, the murder of Ghulam Rasool was committed on the instigation and conspiracy of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a bare reading of the F.I.R. shows that neither the petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence nor he took part in the occurrence. The only allegation against the petitioner is that due to his illicit liaison with Mst. Fatima widow of Yaqoob, the occurrence took place. The petitioner was found innocent during the investigation and he has been summoned by the learned trial Judge in a complaint through non-bailable warrants, hence the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the police officer, opposed this bail application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner took active part in the commission of the crime. On the contrail, there is finding of the police that the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation. The case against the petitioner seems to be one of further inqui4 in view of the finding of the police, hence the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q/M-1629/L Bail granted