2005 PLP 1688 (YLR)
AKHTAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1688 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | AKHTAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1688 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1688 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1688 (YLR) (AKHTAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Altaf Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 109 & 34-Bail, refusal of-- Specific role had been attributed to accused and weapon of offence had also been recovered from him-case of accused fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. and prosecution witnesses had fully supported prosecution version
Accused was identified at the time of occurrence No case for grant of post-arrest bail having been made out, bail petition was dismissed. Muhammad Sarwar Awan for the State. Zulfiqar Ahmad, A.S.-I. with Record.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner Akhtar Hussain has moved for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.304 of 2003 dated 17-8-2003 registered under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station, Fazilpur District, Rajanpur.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he while armed with .12 bore pistol along with other co accused fired with his pistol which hit Husnain Ahmad deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Muhammad Amin and Hazoor Bakhsh have been granted bail by the learned trial Court. That petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year. That this is an unwitnessed Occurrence and petitioner has falsely been involved in this case.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the petitioner has been attributed specific role and recovery has been effected from him and the P.Ws. Nasir and Shakeel fully supported the prosecution version.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Specific role has been attributed to the petitioner/accused and also the weapon of offence has been recovered from him. Further more, petitioner's case falls within prohibitory clause and the P.Ws. namely Nasir and Shakeel fully supported the prosecution version and the petitioner/accused was identified at the time of occurrence. In these circumstances no case for the grant of post-arrest bail is made out hence, the instant bail petition hereby, dismissed. H.B.T./A-422/L Petition dismissed.