1992 P Cr (PLP)
SIKANDAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | SIKANDAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (SIKANDAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Salim for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34/109‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused were not mentioned in F.I.R‑‑Only four persons were mentioned in F.I.R. as assailants, but later on seven persons were involved making the case highly doubtful‑‑‑Identification of accused was prima facie also doubtful‑‑‑Accused were allowed bail in circumstances. Bashir Ahmad Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34/109‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused were not mentioned in F.I.R‑‑Only four persons were mentioned in F.I.R. as assailants, but later on seven persons were involved making the case highly doubtful‑‑‑Identification of accused was prima facie also doubtful‑‑‑Accused were allowed bail in circumstances. Qazi Muhammad Salim for Petitioners. Bashir Ahmad Khan for the State. Petitioners Sikandar, Riaz and Umar Hayat alias Umra seek bail in a case registered with Police Station Phularwan, District Sargodha, vide F.I.R. dated 13‑10‑1989, for offences under section 302/34/109, P.P.C.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the petitioners is named in the F.I.R. Argued that petitioners Nos.1 and 2 could not be identified by the witnesses in the identification parade, therefore, their involvement, prima facie, is highly doubtful. Contended that the prosecution story has not been relied upon by the investigating agency as it has held that some of the persons mentioned in the F.I.R. are innocent. Argued that in the presence of the identification report, no valid charge can be framed against the petitioners, therefore; they are entitled to the concession of bail.
3. I. have heard the learned counsel and gone through the F.I.R. The petitioners are not mentioned in the F.I.R., though role to some unknown persons is ascribed. Learned counsel for the State could hot deny that petitioners Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Sikandar and Riaz, could not be identified in the identification parade. All the petitioners could not be present at the spot, because only four persons were mentioned in the F.I.R. as assailants, but later on seven persons were involved, which also makes the case highly doubtful. Since the identification of the petitioners is, prima facie, doubtful, therefore, I feel, they are entitled to the concession of bail. The petitioners are allowed bail provided each of the petitioners furnishes a security in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of .Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. N.H.Q./S‑109/L Bail granted.