2001 PLP 1123 (MLD)
ALLAH DITTA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1123 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore Before Raja Muhammad Sabir, J |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1123 (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 2001 PLP 1123 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore Before Raja Muhammad Sabir, J bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1123 (MLD) (ALLAH DITTA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Shabbir Langrial for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused though was not named in the F.I.R. and no direct evidence was available against the accused, yet the complainant or prosecution witnesses were not inimical against the accused‑‑‑Worth of evidence of prosecution witnesses who saw the accused riding on the cycle of the deceased immediately after the occurrence would be examined by the Trial Court‑‑‑Cycle of the deceased was recovered from the accused and the gun allegedly used in the occurrence was recovered from the house of the accused on his pointation‑‑‑Accused also stood implicated in another criminal case‑‑‑Trial had already commenced and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence‑‑‑Deep appreciation of circumstantial .evidence was not possible at bail stage‑‑‑Trial having commenced, the accused could not be admitted to bail. Arshad Ali Chohan for the Complainant. Malik Abdul Hameed Khokhar for the State
Judgment & Decree
Arshad Ali Chohan for the Complainant. Malik Abdul Hameed Khokhar for the State Date of hearing: 17th August, 2000. Petitioner Peeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.521 of 1999 dated 27‑8‑1999 registered under section 302, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Arifwala District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27‑8‑1999 Muhammad Rafique deceased had a round of land to see his crops. He did not return and his dead body was found on the road near tubewell of Fakhar‑ud‑Din. Deceased received fire‑arm injuries Muhammad Afzal informed to the complainant son of the deceased who reported the matter. The case was registered against unknown person on the statement of Ghulam Mustafa. During the investigation Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Bashir P.Ws. disclosed to the investigating Officer that they had seen the accused going on cycle of the deceased immediately after the occurrence. The accused was arrested and on his pointation .12 bore gun was recovered from his house as well as cycle. Petitioner is also involved in another case F.I.R. No.140 of 1996, dated 8‑5‑1996 under section 394, P.P.C. Police Station Khudian. The accused was arrested on 31‑12‑1999. Challan was submitted and case is fixed for prosecution evidence for 25‑8‑2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no direct 'evidence against the petitioner. Evidence of Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Bashir was recorded on 22‑9‑1999. The recovery of cycle and gun themselves are not sufficient to connect him with the crime.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State have opposed the grant of bail.
5. Heard. Record perused. Although the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. arid there is no direct evidence yet complainant or P.Ws. are not inimical against the accused. Worth of evidence of Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Bashir who saw the accused riding on the cycle of the deceased immediately after the occurrence will be examined by the trial Court. Cycle of the deceased was recovered from the petitioner. Similarly on his pointation the gun was recovered from his house. He stands implicated in another case F.I.R. No.140 of 1996 dated 8‑5‑1996. The trial has already commenced and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence for 25‑8‑2000. Deep appreciation of circumstantial evidence is.not possible at this stage. Since the trial has commenced I see no ground to admit the petitioner to bail at this stage. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑204/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.