1989 P Cr (PLP)
Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nazir Janjua for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑5. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused exonerated by complainant and witnesses named in F.I.R. by sworn affidavits‑‑Witnesses consistent in their stand before Sessions Judge as well as before High Court Bail allowed in circumstances. Sami Ullah Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Nazir Janjua for Petitioner. Sami Ullah Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 1st March, 1989. The petitioner who has been arrested in a case registered against him at the instance of his father under section 302, P.P.C. for having murdered his brother, seeks bail on the grounds that he was named in the F.I.R. because of suspicion; that his father who has lodged the F.I.R. and the other eye‑witnesses named in the F.I.R. have exonerated him by way of affidavits and as such there is no likelihood of petitioner being convicted for the offence charged with.
2. The affidavits are attached with the petition. Apart from that, the complainant and the other witnesses had not only submitted the affidavits exonerating the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, but had also appeared before him at the time of hearing of the bail application. Obviously, the complainant and the witnesses are consistent in their stand of exonerating the petitioner. In the circumstances, there appears to be enough justification in allowing bail to the petitioner. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioner is directed to be released, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. twenty‑five thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Shorkot. SA./K‑181/L Bail granted.