1984 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 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 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/326/325/148/149--Bail--Case of accused identical with co-accused to whom Sessions Court allowed bail- Question of guilt of accused requiring further inquiry--Bail granted.
Judgment & Decree
S.497-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/326/325/148/149--Bail--Case of accused identical with co-accused to whom Sessions Court allowed bail- Question of guilt of accused requiring further inquiry--Bail granted. Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner. This is an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Alam, in a case under section 307/326/325/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Chrishtian, District Bahawalnagar vide F. I. R. No.186/83, dated 6th August, 1983. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and others in furtherance of their common object launched murderous assault on Abdul Hameed and others on 6th August, 1983 in the area of Chak 110, Fatheh, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawainagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused namely Muhammad Muslim whose case is identical with that of the petitioner has already been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar. Learned counsel for the State has however, opposed this application on the ground ,that the alleged offence being punishable. with imprisonment for life, falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the provisions of section 148/149, Cr.P.C. are very much attracted to the case of the petitioner. 4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material available before me I find that the co-accused Muhammad Muslim who was attributed identical role has already been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has distinguished the case of Muhammad Alam on the ground that he had direct motive against the victim. I find that Muhammad Muslim co-accused being the brother of Muhammad Alam had also direct motive against the victim and as such prima facie the case of Muhammad Alam is not distinguishable from the case Muhammad Muslim. I further find that some of the co-accused were also injured during the incident. For what has been found above I am of the opinion that the question of guilt of the petitioner requires further inquiry. He is allowed 8 bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Chistian. M.Y.H. Bail allowed.