1985 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL RAZZAK Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RAZZAK Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 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 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL RAZZAK Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Nur Muhammad Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 304 & 304‑A‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused allegedly driving vehicle at high speed and running down deceased‑‑Sessions Court refusing bail on ground that accused was not having any valid licence .to drive vehicle and he, had driven van at busy place at high speed causing death of deceased‑‑Contention that observation of Sessions Court was misconceived‑‑State counsel conceding fact of having driving licence by accused‑‑Held allegations in F.I.R. prima facie disclosed commission of an offence under 5.304‑A, P.P.C.‑ Bail allowed in circumstances. Salim Shad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Nur Muhammad Awan for Petitioner. Salim Shad for the State. Abdul Razzaq petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under section 304, P.P.C.
2. The allegations are that on 23‑4‑1985 the petitioner drove a Suzuki‑van at high speed and ran over Hamid Ullah, aged 13/14 years, as a result of which he died in the hospital. The petitioner moved an application in the Sessions Court but the same was dismissed on the ground that he was not having any valid licence to drive the vehicle and had driven the van at a busy bus‑stand at high speed causing the death of a young boy.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations prima facie disclose an offence under section 304‑A, P.P.C. which is bailable. He further submits that the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner was not having a licence and was driving a. a busy bus‑stand is, misconceived. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner was having a driving licence.
4. I have gone through the relevant material. The allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie disclose the commission of an offence under section 304‑A, P.P.C. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Mianwali. H.A.K. Bail granted.