2002 PLP 931 (YLR)
MUNIR AKHTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 931 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUNIR AKHTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 931 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 931 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 931 (YLR) (MUNIR AKHTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Masood for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(1), first proviso‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/201/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Age of accused being about 14/15 years at the time of incident, he was allowed bail in circumstances. 1996 PCr. LJ 166 and 1995 PCr. LJ 412 ref. Syed Ali Raza for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.497(1), first proviso‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/201/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Age of accused being about 14/15 years at the time of incident, he was allowed bail in circumstances. 1996 PCr. LJ 166 and 1995 PCr. LJ 412 ref. Akhtar Masood for Petitioner. Syed Ali Raza for the State. Case F.I.R. No.476 dated 1‑12‑1996 under sections 302/201/34, P.P.Q. was registered at Police Station R.A. Bazar after dead body of Sultan Mehmood deceased was found lying in the area of Afshan Colony. Later petitioner was made one of the accused in the case and was arrested. The petitioner has applied for grant of trial.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that circumstantial evidence against the petitioner presently available on the record did not connect him adequately with the commission of offence and beside that he was aged 15 years only and being a minor was not likely to be punished with sentence of Qisas and in all likelihood his parents would be burdened with payment of Diyat only. Reliance in this regard was placed on 1996 PCr. LJ 166 and 1995 PCr.LJ
412. Learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail.
3. Keeping in view the age of petitioner as he was about 14/15 years at the time of incident, he is allowed bail in the sum of 2,20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for the petitioner in all likelihood, would be sentenced under section
308. P.P.C. even if he would be found guilty in the final analysis primarily would be liable to pay Diyat amounting to Rs.2,12,664.09. H.B.T./M‑1342/L Bail granted.