1993 PCr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IKRAM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IKRAM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PCr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PCr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PCr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IKRAM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Mahmood Chaudhry for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(1)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Accused charged with murder and named in F.I.R. was last seen with the deceased-- Accused was thus, not entitled to bail.
S. 497(1)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.201
Charge against accused was destruction of evidence which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Judgment & Decree
S. 497(1)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.201
Charge against accused was destruction of evidence which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Accused was admitted to bail. Khalid Mahmood Chaudhry for Petitioners. Arif Chaudhry for the Complainant. Subtain Bokhari for the State. Muhammad Ikram and Abdul Ghaffar petitioner alongwith 2 others stand charged with the murder of Ijaz Hussain deceased.
2. The prosecution case is that on 27-3-1992 Muhammad Ikram came to the shop of Ijaz Hussain deceased and asked him to accompany him for buying a motor-cycle. The deceased accompanied him after taking an amount of Rs.17,000 with him. The deceased did not return to his hose. On search, his dead body was found near Railway crossing. The matter was reported to the police raising suspicion against Muhammad Ikram petitioner. During investigation Abdul Ghaffar petitioner was also arrested on the allegation that he had tried to destroy the evidence by throwing the motor-cycle of the deceased into the canal. On 13-9-1992 the motor-cycle was recovered from the canal.
3. Bail is sought on the grounds that Muhammad Ikram petitioner is a minor having born on 24-11-1978. Abdul Ghaffar pleads for bail on the grounds that his name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and further that the motor-cycle in question was not recovered at his instance nor did anybody claim to have seen him throwing the motor-cycle into the canal.
4. Learned counsel for the State and complainant have opposed the grant of bail. According to them since the trial has commenced any observation by this Court might have some adverse bearing on the trial.
5. Since Muhammad Ikram petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the deceased was last seen with him, I do not consider him entitled to bail at this stage and dismiss his application. However, the case of Abdul Ghaffar petitioner appears to be distinguishable because the main allegation against him is of causing the disappearance of evidence. It is punishable with seven years' imprisonment and as such does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Accordingly he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Needless to say that none of the observations made above would influence the mind of the learned trial Court while disposing of the case on merits. AA./M-628/L Order accordingly.