1994 P Cr (PLP)
SHAFQAT alias SHAFFU and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAFQAT alias SHAFFU and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (SHAFQAT alias SHAFFU and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Taqi Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/452/324/148/149
Two co-accused who had not taken any part in the occurrence except their presence at the spot had already been released on bail by High Court
Case of accused being at par with that of the said co-accused, they were also allowed bail.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1784/B of 1994, decided on 24th May, 1994.
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/452/324/148/149
Two co-accused who had not taken any part in the occurrence except their presence at the spot had already been released on bail by High Court
Case of accused being at par with that of the said co-accused, they were also allowed bail. Muhammad Taqi Khan for Petitioners. Arif Ali Hazoor for the State. In an occurrence in which one Bashir had lost his life and his wife Mst. Hajra P.W. had received fire-arm injury on her person, the effective shots had been attributed to Muhammad Akram, Khawar Abbas and Amanat. Seven others were not intended being present alongwith the above-mentioned three assailants at the time of the occurrence. Two of them who had neither entered the room where the above-noted damage had been done nor had they taken A any other part in the occurrence in question except their presence at the place of occurrence have already been bailed out by this Court through an order, dated 19-4-1994 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1513/B of 1994. The case of the present petitioners is not distinguishable in arty manner from the case of the said Murtaza and Muhammad Boota who already stand released on bail. It is an admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant party had falsely involved ten members of the accused party who are all closely related to each other. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioners being at par with the case of Muhammad Boota and Murtaza who 8 had already been admitted to bail, the present petitioners are also allowed bail in case F.I.R. No.103, dated 30-5-1993, of Police Station Mannanwala of District Sheikhupura subject to each one of them furnishing security in the sum of Rs.30,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura. N.H.Q./S-482/L Bail allowed.