1989 P Cr (PLP)
ZAFAR IQBAL and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar J |
| Parties | ZAFAR IQBAL and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (v of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 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: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (ZAFAR IQBAL and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Contradictory opinions of Investigating Officers regarding occurrence‑‑Prosecution witnesses appearing before police implicated accused in case 25 days after occurrence and one of witnesses despite appearing before police on earlier occasions, never alleged murder of deceased at the hands of accused in manner subsequently stated by him‑‑Gun allegedly recovered at the instance of accused was unconnected‑‑Occurrence having taken place inside house of accused during night, accused had a right to defend himself against apprehension of death‑‑No reasonable grounds appearing to believe that accused were guilty of offence‑‑Accused admitted to bail. Fazal Elahi Shahid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Fazal Elahi Shahid for the State. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1988. This is a bail application on behalf of Zafar lqbal and Abdul Jabbar petitioners.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Abdul Jabbar petitioner reported to the police on the night of 19‑5‑1988 an hour after the alleged occurrence that Mian Khan deceased armed with a gun and Shahadat alias Shadoo armed with rifle entered into his house. Their companion Sohni stood outside. Mian Khan deceased fired at hum which went amiss and hit a wall. Thereafter he took out a carbine from the fold of his Shalwar and trial to enter the room where Abdul Jabbar was hiding himself. Mian Khan deceased fell down with his carbine which was picked up by Abdul Jabbar. Meanwhile, Mian Khan re‑loaded his gun and aimed towards Abdul Jabbar who in self‑defence fired at him resulting in his death. According to him the occurrence was witnessed by Ilam Din and Hamid Ali. During investigation Hamid Ali and Ilam Din confirmed the allegations as narrated by Abdul Jabbar petitioner in the F.I.R. Muhammad Tufail Inspector who had investigated the case found Shahadat alias Shadoo and Sohni accused named in the F.I.R. guilty. This conclusion was also confirmed by Mushtaq Hussain D.S.P., Okara. Later the investigation was taken up by S.P., Okara. On 14‑6‑1988 Shahadat alias Shadoo mentioned as accused in the F.I.R. and Noor Samand appeared before the police and stated that Zafar Iqbal and Abdul Jahhar petitioners and one Abdul Haq were responsible for the murder of Mian. Khan deceased. They stated that the deceased was maintaining illicit intimacy with the sister of the petitioner and daughter of Abdul Haq. Abdul Haq found was innocent in the investigation and got discharged by the police.
3. During investigation a .12 bore gun was recovered at the instance of Abdul Jabbar petitioner. However, no recovery was effected from Zafar Iqbal. On the basis of the statements of Shahadat alias Shadoo and Noor Samand the petitioners were challaned while Sohni aforementioned nominated as accused in the F.I.R. was let off.
4. Bail is urged on the grounds that there are contradictory opinions of the Investigating Officers and that Shahadat alias Shadoo and Noor Samand P.Ws, had appeared before the police implicating the petitioners in the case 25 days after the occurrence. Noor Samand had been appearing before the police on earlier occasions but he never alleged the murder of Mian Khan at the hands of the petitioners in the manner now stated by him. It is further stated that he was nominated as accused in the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner. The gun alleged to be recovered at the instance of Abdul Jabbar is said to he unconnected. It is next contended that since the occurrence had taken place inside the house of Abdul Jahbar petitioner at night time, he had ii right to defend himself against apprehension of death.
5. Keeping in view the above circumstances there appear to he no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners ate guilty of the alleged offence. Accordingly, I admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Okara. H.B.T./Z‑92/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.