1990 PLP 315 (SCMR)
LAL MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 315 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Zaffar Hussain Mirza |
| Parties | LAL MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 315 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 315 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Zaffar Hussain Mirza.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 315 (SCMR) (LAL MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court and M. K. N Kohli, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1989.
- Ch. Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑General, Baluchistan for the State.
- After having; gone through the record of the case and the investigation papers made available by the learned Advocate‑General we find that in refusing to release the petitioner ion bail at this stage, learned Judge in the High Court has not violated any legal provision or principle of law governing bail in cases such as this. The petition is therefore dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Baluchistan High Court, Quetta dated 31‑1‑1989 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18 of 1989). ‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Offences Against property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused seeking bail on the grounds that his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the only evidence available with the prosecution consisted of confessional statements of co‑accused‑‑‑High Court, not violating any legal provision or principle of law governing bail while rejecting bail application‑‑‑Petition dismissed. Ch. Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑General, Baluchistan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Offences Against property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused seeking bail on the grounds that his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the only evidence available with the prosecution consisted of confessional statements of co‑accused‑‑‑High Court, not violating any legal provision or principle of law governing bail while rejecting bail application‑‑‑Petition dismissed. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court and M. K. N Kohli, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑General, Baluchistan for the State. Date of hearing: 7th June, 1989. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of a learned Judge of Baluchistan High Court dated 31‑1‑1989 dismissing petitioner's request for release on bail pending trial of a case against him under section 302/34, P.P.C. read with section 17(4) of Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. Facts of the case are as under: On the night between Ist and 2nd October, 1988, it is said that 5 persons trespassed into the house of Abdul Karim (deceased) and on gun point demanded money and jewellery, from him. On his refusal the culprits committed murder of Abdul Karim and his two sons. The crime was reported by Bibi Hoor widow of Abdul Karim with Saddar Police Station, Quetta. During the investigation 5 persons namely, Lal Mohammad petitioner, Mohammad Aslam, Mian Khan, Rozi Khan and Abdul Wahid were arrested. Petitioner applied for release on bail on the ground that his name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the only evidence available with the prosecution consists of confessional statements of co‑accused Mohammad Aslam and Mian Khan which cannot sustain his guilt on the charges levelled against him. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta rejected petitioner's request for bail on the ground that "a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner which disentitles him from the grant of the bail." Thereafter, petitioner approached the High Court with the same request but it was also rejected by the impugned order mentioned above. After having; gone through the record of the case and the investigation papers made available by the learned Advocate‑General we find that in refusing to release the petitioner ion bail at this stage, learned Judge in the High Court has not violated any legal provision or principle of law governing bail in cases such as this. The petition is therefore dismissed. MA.K./L‑32/S ! Petition dismissed.