1995 PLP 834 (SCMR)
ALLAH RAKHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 834 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH RAKHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 834 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 834 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 834 (SCMR) (ALLAH RAKHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ihsanullah Khan Lilla, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Latif Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents . Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 9th August, 1994.
- J.V. Gardener, Advocate. Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 22‑3‑1994 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Crl. Misc. No. 188/B of 1994). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Accused had no motive to kill the deceased‑‑‑According to investigation deceased had been subjected to beating under grave and sudden provocation at a place different from the one mentioned in the F.I:R. by the complainant‑‑ Co‑accused had. made exculpatory confessional statements exonerating the accused‑‑‑Said observations made by High Court while granting bail to accused could not be controverted by the complainant‑‑‑Prosecution did not support the petition for cancellation of bail‑‑‑Case had been fixed for trial‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. J.V. Gardener, Advocate. Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J: ‑‑Allah Rakha petitioner/complainant seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 22‑3‑1994 whereby Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Iqbal respondents were allowed bail in a murder case.
2. In an occurrence which took place on the night between 11/12th October, 1993 one Ibrahim was murdered. The respondents and three others namely Fida Hussain son of Allah Bakhsh, Shaukat Hussain son of Ghulam Hussain and Ghulam Hussain son of Mahi caste Kut were named as. the assailants of the deceased. Illicit liaison between Mst. Tasleem Bibi daughter of Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Ibrahim deceased was stated to be the motive for the offence.
3. The part attributed to Muhammad Hassan respondent was that he raised a Lalkara exhorting his co‑accused to kill the deceased and also gave a butt blow to the deceased when he had fallen down after receiving injuries from the co‑accused who were armed with Sotas. Bail to Muhammad Iqbal respondent was allowed on the ground that he was found innocent during the investigation. The petition against him has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Muhammad Hassan respondent was admitted to bail on the ground that he had no motive to kill the deceased; during investigation by the Additional Superintendent Police it had transpired that the deceased was subjected to beating under grave and sudden provocation at a place different from the one mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R. and the co‑accused namely Fida Hussain, Ghulam Hussain and Shaukat Hussain "have made exculpatory confessional statements, exonerating Muhammad Hassan". 3‑A. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Muhammad Hassan respondent is named in the F.I.R. with a specific role, therefore, he was not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, could not controvert the observations made by the Learned Judge in the impugned order referred to above. The learned State Counsel does not support the petition for cancellation of bail. During the arguments we have been informed that trial is ready and case is fixed for 25‑8‑1994. In that view of the matter we would not like to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Consequently this petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑1214/S Leave refused.