1994 PLP 481 (SCMR)
ABDUS SATTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 481 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUS SATTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 481 (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 1994 PLP 481 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 481 (SCMR) (ABDUS SATTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Ahmed Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15‑8‑1993 passed in Cr.M. No. 2932‑B of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Cancellation of bail ‑‑‑Co‑accused had allegedly deceitfully picked the deceased from his house where after he never returned alive and on their pointation some bones of the deceased and his shirt and shoes had been recovered ‑‑‑Contention that said co -accused were employees of the accused by itself was not sufficient to charge the accused with the commission of the offence ‑‑‑Co‑accused in their confession had not even involved the accused in the said offence‑‑‑Accused had rightly been granted bail by High Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Cancellation of bail ‑‑‑Co‑accused had allegedly deceitfully picked the deceased from his house where after he never returned alive and on their pointation some bones of the deceased and his shirt and shoes had been recovered ‑‑‑Contention that said co -accused were employees of the accused by itself was not sufficient to charge the accused with the commission of the offence ‑‑‑Co‑accused in their confession had not even involved the accused in the said offence‑‑‑Accused had rightly been granted bail by High Court in circumstances. Ali Ahmed Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1993. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby bail has been granted to respondent No.l. The petitioner in fact seeks cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent.
2. The respondent had been suspected of committing murder of Muhammad Azam and the motive was that he was suspecting that the deceased had illicit intimacy with his daughter Mst. Yasmin. It was stated that on the night of 28‑2‑1993 Inayat and Muhammad Sharif co‑accused deceitfully picked the deceased from his house where after he never returned alive. On pointation of these co‑accused namely Inayat and Muhammad Sharif some bones of the deceased were recovered and also his shirt and shoes.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the co‑accused are employees of the respondent, but this circumstance by itself is not sufficient to charge him with the commission of the offence. Moreover, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the co‑accused have made confession, but have not involved the respondent in the commission of the offence. In these circumstances, the learned Judge was justified in granting bail. Leave is refused: N.H.Q./A‑1066/S Leave refused.