2001 PLP 1100 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1100 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sheikh Abdur Razzaq and Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1100 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1100 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sheikh Abdur Razzaq and Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1100 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Ghaffar Bhutta for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 12th October, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 302, 308 & 331(2)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Conversion of conviction and sentences‑‑‑Supreme Court converted conviction and sentence of the convicts from S.302(b), P.P.C. to S.308, P.P.C. with direction to the convicts to pay amount of Diyat‑‑‑Convicts had requested that they had no source of income to pay the amount of Diyat as ordered by the Supreme Court so they could be released on bail under S.331(2), P.P.C.‑‑‑Court accepting petition of the convicts released them on bail accordingly subject to payment of amount of surety within stipulated period. Muhammad Saeed v. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Faisalabad 2000 PCr.LJ 2 and Muhammad Afzal v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 934 ref. Ghazanfar Ali Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Abdul Ghaffar Bhutta for Petitioners. Ghazanfar Ali Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 12th October, 2000. The petitioners were convicted under sections 302/34, P.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur vide judgment dated 21‑2‑1995 and were sentenced to death. Both of them challenged the said decision vide Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1995. Murder Reference No. 11 of 1995 was also filed. Vide judgment dated 18‑11‑1998 the appeal of the convict appellant was dismissed and murder reference was answered, in the affirmative. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 18‑11‑1998 passed by this Court, Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 1999 was filed in the Supreme Court which was disposed of vide judgment dated 5‑6‑2000, As a result. of judgment dated 5‑6‑2000 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan their conviction and sentence under section 302(b), P.P.C. has been converted to section 308, P.P.C. and both the petitioners have been directed to pay Diyat separately on two counts Which shall be payable by them at the rate prevailing on the day of incident i.e., 26‑10‑1991 as well as they have to undergo 14 years R.I. under section 308(2), P.P.C. the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to them.
2. Through this petition., the petitioners have requested that they have no source of income to pay the amount of Diyat as ordered by the Supreme Court so they may be released on bail as provided under section 331(2), P.P.C.
3. Arguments have been heard and. record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his contention mentioned in his petition and has also placed reliance upon Muhammad Saeed v. The Superintendent, Central Jail Faisalabad (2000 PCr.LJ 2) as well as Muhammad Afzal v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 934 (Lahore). Conversely learned counsel for the State has nothing to rebut these contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as of the State, we are inclined to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly petition is accepted and the petitioners are allowed to be released on bail under section 331(2), P.P.C. provided they furnish bail bond surety bond to the tune of Rs.2,50,000each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. If the amount of surety is not paid within the stipulated period of section 331(2), P.P.C. they shall be taken into custody.
6. With this observation petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M‑518/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Orders accordingly.