1977 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1977 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gulbaz Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gulbaz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Abdul Salim for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(1) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 149 ‑Petitioner, a member of an unlawful assembly, being armed with a stick committing murder and murderous assault intentionally alongwith co‑accused
Case of petitioner, held, fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497(1, Cr. P. C.‑Bail declined, in circumstances. Mohd. Abdul Wahid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mohammad Siddiq petitioner and his co‑accused were allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur 25‑3‑
75. Muhammad Iqbal moved Cr. Miss. No. 1375 H/75, for the cancellation of bail. The bail of the petitioner was cancelled by this Court, on 6‑6‑75.
2. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner and his cc‑accused constituted an unlawful assembly and in me prosecution of the common object of unlawful 'assembly committed the murder of Shaukat intentionally and attempted on the lives of Muhammad Iqbal complainant, his father Ismail, and his mother Mst. Fazeelat, Abdul Latif P. W. came there to rescue but he was injured by Yousaf co‑accused. Mohammad Iqbal com plainant mentioned in the F. I. R. that they also caused injuries to the accused in self‑defence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner caused injuries to the deceased and the prosecution witnesses in self‑defence. He produced medico‑legal reports of Mohammad Siddiq petitioner. Mst. Jannat and Mst. Rahmat. The petitioner had one lacerated wound on the left parietal region. The complainant had explained the injuries of Mst. Jannat, Mst. Rahmat and Suleman in the F. I. R. by stating that on the morning of the day of occurrence, Shaukat deceased was assaulted by Mst. Jannat, Mst. Rahmat and Suleman and on hearing his noise, his father and mother had reached the spot and Shaukat and his father caused injuries to Mst. Jannat, Mst. Rahmat and Suleman. That occurrence had taken place ire the morning. The murder was committed at about 9‑00 a. m. The complainant further stated in the F. I. R. that they had caused injuries to accused in self‑defence. Shaukat deceased, Ismail and Mst. Fazeelat were returning to their house. When they reached near the house of Rahmat Ullah co‑accused, they were assaulted by the petitioner and his co‑accused. The petitioner was armed with a stick. He had caused stick injuries to Mst. Fazeelat. The petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly. He along with co‑accused commit ted the murder of Shaukat deceased intentionally and attempted on the lives of Muhammad Iqbal, Ismail, Mst. Fazeelat and Abdul Latif P. Ws; The A petitioner is involved in a case which is punishably with death or imprison ment for life. His case falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1), Cr. P. C. It is not a fit case for the grant of bail. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.