1986 P Cr (PLP)
BASHARAT alias FAZAL ELAHI and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | BASHARAT alias FAZAL ELAHI and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (BASHARAT alias FAZAL ELAHI and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Sultan Alam for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail, grant of Prosecution case resting on circumstantial evidence of joint extra‑judicial confession and recovery of dead body at joint pointation of petitioners‑‑Held: A case of further inquiry, in circumstances‑‑Petitioners allowed bail. Malik Niaz Muhammad Bodla for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail, grant of Prosecution case resting on circumstantial evidence of joint extra‑judicial confession and recovery of dead body at joint pointation of petitioners‑‑Held: A case of further inquiry, in circumstances‑‑Petitioners allowed bail. M. Sultan Alam for Petitioners. Malik Niaz Muhammad Bodla for the State. The petitioner alongwith four others stands charged with the murder of Ahmad Ali deceased. It is contended that there is no direct evidence in the case and the case rests on circumstantial evidence viz. extra‑judicial confession, pointing out the dead body, recovery of blood‑stained Kasai and Dang from Basharat and Jad Ali petitioners respectively. It is also contended that Muhammad Akram and Liaqat co‑accused have already been admitted to bail by Mr. Justice Muhammad Zafrullah on 28‑2‑1984 while Ramzan and Riasat Ali co‑accused have been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.
3. Bail of the present petitioner is urged on the grounds that the alleged extra‑judicial confession is joint, the recovery of the dead body is also at the alleged joint pointation of the petitioners and further that the recovery by itself will not be sufficient to bring home the guilt to the petitioners.
4. Keeping in view the above circumstances, it appears to be a case of further inquiry. Accordingly, I admit the petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sahiwal. S. G. D. Bail granted.