1987 PLP 3179 (MLD)
ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 3179 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 3179 (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 1987 PLP 3179 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 3179 (MLD) (ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sahibzada Farooq Ali and Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/364/201--Bail, grant of- Occurrence a blind murder and nothing incriminating recovered from petitioner--Deceased allegedly last seen with petitioner and his three co-accused but one of such co-accused found innocent during investiga tion--Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. A.A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is a petition for bail on behalf of Abdul Sattar petitioner who is involved in a case u/ss. 302,364 and 201/34, P.P.C.
2. There is no direct evidence of the murder and the material collected by the investigation agency consists of the following items:- (i) Last seen evidence furnished by Manzoor Baig, Jahangir, Shaukat Ali and Abdur Razzaq PWs; (ii) Extra-judicial confession allegedly made by co-accused Sarwar before Mushtaq and Arshad Baig PWs and (iii) Recovery of last worn clothes of the deceased from aforesaid co-accused Sarwar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the material collected by the Investigating Agency is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offence with which he is charged, therefore, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The learned A. A. G has opposed the prayer for bail He submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the complainant had no motive to falsely implicate him in this case.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of material available on the record. The allegation against the petitioner is that the deceased was last seen with him and his co-accused Sarwar, Anwar and Yaqoob. Afore mentioned Yaqoob was, however, found innocent during the investigation. There is no recovery from the petitioner. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that a case for his enlargement on bail is made out. Accordingly, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C, Pakpattan. S.G.D./A-171/L Bail allowed.