1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Rafiquddin for Petitioner:
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Nobody was charged for the commission of the offence in the F.I.R.
Co-accused in his confessional statement had not assigned any specific role to the accused in the commission of the offence except that he had accompanied them to the place of occurrence
Case of accused as such was of further inquiry and he was allowed bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Nobody was charged for the commission of the offence in the F.I.R.
Co-accused in his confessional statement had not assigned any specific role to the accused in the commission of the offence except that he had accompanied them to the place of occurrence
Case of accused as such was of further inquiry and he was allowed bail accordingly. Mian Rafiquddin for Petitioner: Habibur Rehman Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1990. Complainant Rahim Shah and his cousin Rehmat Shah were proceeding on a motor-cycle from village Topi to his village at 23-45 hours on 31-5-1989 when they were fired at with Klashnikov by a person. Both were injured but Rehmat Shah died at the spot. The complainant had no enmity with any person and nobody is charged for the commission of the offence in F.I.R. No.166 which was recorded at the instance of Rahim Shah on 1-6-1989 at 00-25 hours.
2. Subsequently accused Abdus Salam was arrested who made a confession on 19-6-1989 wherein he has stated that when his co-accused Arshad had conspired to kill Rahim Shah, the petitioner was also present. However, the confessional statement also does not assign any specific role to the petitioner in the commission of the offence except that he had accompanied them to the place of occurrence. As such the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry. The petition is accepted and he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. N.H.Q./1555/P Bail allowed.