1987 PLP 3097 (MLD)
HAQ NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 3097 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Arif, J |
| Parties | HAQ NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 3097 (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 1987 PLP 3097 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Arif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 3097 (MLD) (HAQ NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Saleem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/460--Bail--Accused not named in first information report but two days later it was stated in supplementary statement that accused had committed crime Joint extra-judicial confession was recorded after nearly two weeks and accused was arrested still a fortnight later--No recovery of any weapon of offence alleged to have been made from accused--Circumstances, held, made case of further inquiry--Bail granted. Muhammad Ramzan Khokhar for the State. M. Anwar Sipra for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Muhammad Saleem for Petitioner. Muhammad Ramzan Khokhar for the State. M. Anwar Sipra for the Complainant. A case under section 302/460, P.P.C. was registered on the report of Muhammad Rafiq to the effect that when he opened the shop of his father, he found the latter dead. Case was registered at Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad on 4-3-1987. On 6-3-1987, he made a supplementary statement saying that Haq Nawaz petitioner and his co-accused Arif used to visit their house and were habitual offenders and they had committed the murder of his father when they came to commit theft. The petitioner is alleged to have made extra-judicial confession before two persons viz. Abdul Hafeez and Javed Iqbal on 18-3-1987. He was arrested on 30-3-1987 and it is alleged that a sum of Rs. 300 was recovered from him. He applied for bail and his application was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27-6-1987. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was a blind murder and the petitioner was not named in the F .I. R. that joint extra-judicial confession has no legal value; and that recovery of Rs. 300 from him has no nexus with the commission of the crime. Learned counsel for the State and complainant submitted that the petitioner is involved in a case under sections 302 and 460, P.P.C. and is, therefore, not entitled to bail.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the, parties. It was a blind murder. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. Two days later it was stated in a supplementary statement that the petitioner had committed the crime. Joint extra-judicial confession was recorded after nearly two weeks and the petitioner was arrested still a fortnight later when the alleged recovery of Rs. 300 was made. No recovery of any weapon of offence is alleged to have been made from him. All these circumstances make it a case of further inquiry. In this vie of the matter the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A . C . /Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad. M. Y. H./H-35/L Bail granted.