1989 PLP 2754 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2754 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI — 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 2754 (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 2754 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2754 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Inayat Ullah Cheema for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 307 & 148/149--Bail, grant of- Accused allegedly causing solitary blow with Soti--Two Investigating Officers arriving at different conclusions as to responsibility of accused--Sessions Judge not reporting as to when case would be tried--Case falling under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.--Bail allowed in circumstances. Khan Muhammad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Muhammad for the State. This is an application seeking bail on behalf of the petitioner in a case registered against him and others under the provisions of section 302/307/148/149,P.P.C.
2. According to the F.I.R. it was the petitioner who had inflicted a solitary blow with Soti on the heart of Raja deceased, who fell down, and thereafter, succumbed to the said injury. Besides the petitioner, Kamal Din, Sardara, Mst. Zarina and Mst. Gullan wife of the petitioner were also involved in this case. It is mentioned in the F.I.R., that there was a dispute between the parties over the possession of land, which fell into the share of the complainant party as a result of the consolidation proceedings.
3. According to the investigation carried out by the S.H.O., it was found that it was the petitioner who had inflicted the SOL, blow, whereas, the D.S.P. concluded that it was Kamala who had inflicted the Soti blow. In fact, the D.S.P. had arrived at this conclusion on the basis of a statement on oath given by one Essa son-in-law of the deceased.
4. This case was registered in October, 1987 therefore, this Court had directed the learned Additional Sessions Judge to submit his report as to when the trial of this case was likely to commence. Report sent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not mention, as to when the trial of this case A would start, but it has only been stated, that it will come on its own turn. Statutory period of two years would be expiring on 1st of November, 1989 because the case was registered as far back as 14th of October, 1987.
5. After considering this case from all angles, this case is covered by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. fifty thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Bhalwal. S.A./M-1259/L Bail allowed.