1987 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Faiz Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Faiz Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Sarwar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 436/34‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑Witnesses named in F.I.R. not mentioning presence of accused at spot in their statements to police‑‑Presence of a witness mentioned by complainant, denied by other witness‑‑Previous enmity between parties, admitted‑‑Mala fides of complainant, in charging accused for crime, also could not be excluded from consideration and presence of accused at spot was matter of further enquiry‑‑Pre‑arrest bail confirmed in circumstances. Kh. Nazir Ahmad, A.A.‑G. for the State. Akmal Khan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Sarwar for Petitioner. Kh. Nazir Ahmad, A.A.‑G. for the State. Akmal Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1986. Abdul Malik has applied for bail before arrest. Charge against him is that he and others committed offence punishable under section 436/34, P.P.C. The report of the occurrence was made by one Iqbal on 10‑6‑1986 at 6‑15 a.m. in which the occurrence was stated to have taken place the same day at 3‑
30. The petitioner having failed to obtain the concession of pre‑arrest bail from the learned Sessions Judge, has come to this Court for the same purpose.
2. Malik Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Kh. Nazir Ahmad, Additional Advocate‑General appeared on behalf of the State and Mr. Muhammad Akmal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant. They have been heard.
3. In the first report Ali Akbar and Muhammad were stated to have reached the spot when the complainant raised alarm. They have not mentioned the presence of petitioner on the spot at the relevant, time in their statements recorded by the police. Ali Akbar has also stated that Sharafat was not present at that time, although the complainant has stated in the F.I.R. that Sharafat, his nephew, was present at the relevant time. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that there is previous enmity between the parties, as mentioned in the first report, the mala fides of the complainant in charging the petitioner for the crime could not, at this stage, be excluded from consideration. Further, the presence of accused on the spot after setting the 'bandi' on fire is also a matter of further inquiry. In the circumstances, the petitioner appears to be entitled to the concession of pre‑arrest bail. The order passed by this Court on 1‑7‑1986 is confirmed. S. A. /503/P Anticipatory bail confirmed.