1993 P Cr (PLP)
MIR MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Khurshid Haider Rizvi, J |
| Parties | MIR MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 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 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Khurshid Haider Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (MIR MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/452/34
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-D
Accused were not said to have caused any injury to the deceased or to any inmate of the house
were allegedly identified during night occurrence in the lantern light, but the lantern had not been secured by police
Two accused had been shown in column 2 by police meaning thereby that police did not believe the version of the complaint party against them during investigation
Accused were Mowed bail in circumstances. 1991 F Cr. L J Note 150 at p.109 ref. Sardar Khan Lashari for Applicants. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, AA.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
1991 F Cr. L J Note 150 at p.109 ref. Sardar Khan Lashari for Applicants. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, AA.-G. for the State. This application for bail has been moved on behalf of applicants Mir Muhammad and Shahzado who are involved in a case registered under sections ;02, 452, 34, P.P.C. and 13-D, Arms Ordinance as Crime No.46/91 of Police Station Tajodero. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that deceased Habibullah was serving as Beldar at Taj Shaikh. Accused persons; namely, Aligul and 5hanoo used to insist upon him to leave the service as they wanted to get their own person appointed against that post. They had even threatened him to murder in case he did not leave the post. It is alleged hat on the day of incident Aligul, Shanoo, Bajhi, Mir Muhammad armed with guns and Shahzado armed with hatchet came to the house of the complainant party. Aligul fired at Habibullah and killed him. At time of the incident complainant Mir and P Ws. Khadim and Mst. Soomri were chit chatting and they saw the incident. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.A.G. It has been submitted that applicants are not said to have caused any injury to the deceased or any inmate of the house. The incident occurred during night and it is said that the culprits had been identified on the light of the lantern but that lantern has not been secured by the police. It is also a fact A that two persons have been shown in Column 2 by the police which means that police did not believe the version of the complainant party during the course of the investigation against those two persons. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicants has relied on 1991 P Cr. L J Note 150 at p.109. For the foregoing reasons I grant bail to the applicants on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 by each of them with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M-1704/K Bail allowed.