1986 P Cr (PLP)
INAYAT ULLAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | INAYAT ULLAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner 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) (INAYAT ULLAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asghar Rokhari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑--‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149‑‑Bail‑‑No injury attributed to accused who himself had received fire‑arm injuries, one of which grievous in nature‑‑Question as to who committed aggression yet to be probed into‑‑Accused admitted to bail. Arshad Hussain for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑--‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149‑‑Bail‑‑No injury attributed to accused who himself had received fire‑arm injuries, one of which grievous in nature‑‑Question as to who committed aggression yet to be probed into‑‑Accused admitted to bail. Muhammad Asghar Rokhari for Petitioner. Arshad Hussain for the State. The petitioner alongwith 7 others stands charged with the murder of Amanullah deceased on 15‑10‑1985. The occurrence was sequel to old enmity between the parties. The petitioner was armed with a gun. He is alleged to have ineffectively fired after Aman Ullah deceased had been hit with the firing of Shafaullah co‑accused. He himself was injured and had received fire‑arm injuries which did not stand explained in the F.I.R. one of the injury was grievous in nature.
2. Learned counsel for the State submits that the said injury was explained in the supplementary statement made by the complainant.
3. Since no injury to the deceased is attributed to the petitioner and he himself is injured, therefore, the question as to who committed aggression is yet to be probed into. Accordingly, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Mianwali. M. Y. H Bail granted.