1989 PLP 694 (MLD)
MUKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 694 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 694 (MLD)?
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 PLP 694 (MLD)?
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 PLP 694 (MLD) (MUKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Ehtisham Qadir Shah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused during investigation not found to have caused injury to complainant although Investigating Officer had come to conclusion that he was present on spot at time of occurrence‑‑Accused in jail for last fourteen months and case had not been fired for trial so far‑‑Accused admitted to bail. Raja Nausher Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused during investigation not found to have caused injury to complainant although Investigating Officer had come to conclusion that he was present on spot at time of occurrence‑‑Accused in jail for last fourteen months and case had not been fired for trial so far‑‑Accused admitted to bail. Syed Ehtisham Qadir Shah for Petitioner. Raja Nausher Khan for the State. The petitioner has been arrested in the case registered against him and two others under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Midh Ranjha District Sargodha on 4‑11‑1987 for an occurrence said to have taken place on the same day. 2 The deceased, according to F.I.R. had died as a result of shot fired by Ijaz co‑accused of the petitioner. The petitioner has been ascribed to have caused a blow with the Sota that he was holding, on the head of the complainant. The injury according to learned counsel for the petitioner was declared simple. Azam the second co‑accused of the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation and way got discharged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the Bar that the petitioner during the investigation was also not found to have caused injury to the complainant, although the Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion that A he was present on the spot at the time of occurrence. He is in jail for the last, fourteen months, and the case has not been fixed for trial so far. In the circumstances, a case for grant of bail appears to have been made out. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. twenty‑five thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sargodah. M.Y.H./M‑110/L Bail allowed.