1990 PLP 1394 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ AHMAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1394 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ AHMAD and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1394 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1394 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1394 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ AHMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 3-12-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Crl. Misc. No. 1280-B of 1989).
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/149/148
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether High Court while granting bail to accused had not treated the material on record in its true perspective particularly when a specific role had been attributed to accused in the F.I.R.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 3-12-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby the respondent was admitted to bail.
2. F.I.R. was lodged by Bashir Ahmad on 19-1-1989 at the Police Station Saddar Wazirabad, against eight persons who alleged that the respondent and seven others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and 'attacked the complainant party as a result of which deceased Muhammad Aslam died. The allegation against the respondent was that he was armed with a rifle and he made indiscriminate firing which hit the deceased. The application for bail was moved before the Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 approached the High Court and the respondent No. 1 was admitted to bail by means of order dated 3-12-1959.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a specific role has been attributed to the respondent No. 1 in the F.I.R. and the learned High Court has not treated the material on record in its true perspective. The contention raised by the learned counsel requires examination. Notice to the respondent as to why the order of the High Court granting him bail should not be recalled. Bailable warrants in the sum. of Rs. 50,0(10 to be issued against the respondent No.
1. N.H.Q./B-157/S Leave granted.