1989 PLP 2748 (MLD)
ROZI KHAN and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2748 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ishaq Khan, J |
| Parties | ROZI KHAN and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2748 (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 2748 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Muhammad Ishaq Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2748 (MLD) (ROZI KHAN and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Khan for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.307/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Daylight occurrence‑‑Accused directly charged for offence‑‑Allegations supported by testimony of eye‑witnesses‑‑Accused remaining fugitive from law‑‑Motive also found against accused‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. S. Ibne Ali, AA. G. for the State. Mian Muhammad Murad for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Kh. Muhammad Khan for Petitioners. S. Ibne Ali, AA. G. for the State. Mian Muhammad Murad for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 16th November, 1985. On the report of Kamin Dad complainant, a case was registered under section 307/34, P.P.C. on 30‑7‑1985 vide F.I.R. No. 352 at Police Station Katlang, wherein the three accused‑petitioners were charged for effectively firing at the complainant and his two companions, namely, Chiri and Mirwas. Bail applications of the three accused‑petitioners were rejected by the lower forums vide orders dated 9‑9‑1985 and 22‑9‑1985 respectively. Hence the present application for the said purpose.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Additional Advocate‑General for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for hte complainant, and have also gone through the record. It is a daylight occurrence wherein all the three petitioners have been directly charged by the complainant that the charge is supported by the testimony' of the eye‑witnesses. Besides this, the petitioners remained fugitive from law and motive for the commission of the crime is there. Therefore, in such circumstances without discussing the merits of the case, I decline to admit the petitioners to bail at this stage. This application is accordingly dismissed. SA./805/P Bail refused.