1986 P Cr (PLP)
ZAKIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J |
| Parties | ZAKIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (ZAKIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307--Accused firing three shots, caused simple injuries on non-vital parts--Additional Sessions Judge while refusing bail directed Trial Court to conclude trial within four months--Additional Sessions Judge, held, had given fair direction and period of four months having not yet expired, petition dismissed in circumstances. Farooq Bedar, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar, A.A.-G. for the State. A case under section 307, P.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner. The allegation against him is that he fired three shots one after the other and injured Gulzar Ahmad and Manzoor son of Noora. After his arrest, the petitioner twice, moved for bail before Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. On both occasions the applications were dismissed. The petitioner has now come to this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner laid great stress on the fact that all the injuries were found to be simple and the A injuries were not on the vital part. The bail was opposed by the learned A.A.-G. He drew my attention to para. 2 of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 15-2-1986 whereby a direction has been given to the trial Court to conclude the trial within four months, positively. The Additional Sessions Judge has given a very fair direction. Period of four months has not yet expired. Petition is dismissed. S.A. Petition dismissed.