1990 P Cr (PLP)
EHSAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | EHSAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (EHSAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1800), Ss.302/34, 201 & 202
Bail, grant of-- F.I.R. was delayed by four years
No eye-witness of occurrence
Dead body was not recovered
Only a bone on pointation of accused was allegedly recovered from which identification of deceased was not possible
Extra-judicial confession was made after four years of occurrence without an occasion to make his breast clean
Reasonable grounds did not exist to believe that the accused was involved in the offence charged
Bail was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner. Zafar Yasin for the State. Ehsan petitioner alongwith 4 others is charged for the murder of Manzoor Ahmad deceased.
2. Bail is sought on the ground that the report was lodged four years after the alleged occurrence, that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence, even the dead body was not recovered, only a bone was allegedly recovered on the pointation of the petitioner without any mark of identification. The petitioner is said to be linked with the crime by his alleged extra judicial confession before Rana Zulfiqar and Rana Muhammad Akram P.Ws, the recovery of the bone on his pointation and of hatchet, which was not blood stained.
3. It is contended that the extra-judicial confession by the accused is a fabricated piece of evidence. There was hardly any occasion for the petitioner to have made his breast clean four years after the alleged occurrence. The recovery of hatchet is without any significance. No identification was possible from the bone alleged to be recovered on his pointation.
4. In the circumstances narrated above, reasonable grounds do not appear that the petitioner is guilty of the alleged offence. Accordingly, l admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Okara. S.A./E-24/L Bail granted.