1985 P Cr (PLP)
QAIM DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mazharul Haq, J |
| Parties | QAIM DIN 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 1985 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 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazharul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (QAIM DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Shaukat Ali and S.A. Saeed for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149‑‑Bail‑‑One accused aged 70 years attributed role of Lalkara only and the other attributed role of firing in air‑‑Bail granted, in circumstances. Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2484/8 of 1984, decided on 12th December, 1984. ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149‑‑Bail‑‑One accused aged 70 years attributed role of Lalkara only and the other attributed role of firing in air‑‑Bail granted, in circumstances. Sardar Shaukat Ali and S.A. Saeed for Petitioners. Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State. Qaim Din alongwith three others are accused of the murder of Jafer Ali. The case was registered against them under section 302/148 read with section 149, P.P.C. on 9‑6‑1984 at Police Station Khudian, District Kasur.
2. The occurrence in this case took place over property dispute. Petitioner Aftab and two others are step‑brothers of Jafer deceased whereas Qaim Din is the father of the deceased. Aftab is attributed the role of firing in the air after the occurrence whereas Qaim Din is attributed a Lalkara. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended attributed a large number of persons have been roped in and it would be highly improbable to believe that Qaim Din father of the deceased would join hands with his other sons in the murder. He is said to be about 70 years of age. Keeping in view the role attributed to the two petitioners g and the age of Qaim Din, I allow them bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rs. twenty‑five thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Kasur. H.A.K. Bail granted,