1987 PLP 1154 (SCMR)
JEHANGIR alias BADSHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1154 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | JEHANGIR alias BADSHAH‑‑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 1154 (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 1987 PLP 1154 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1154 (SCMR) (JEHANGIR alias BADSHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate, Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 21‑3‑1987 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 891/8 of 1987). ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307 & 34 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Bail grant of‑‑Dismissal of bail application by High Court‑‑Allegations showing that petitioner participated in a pre-concerted attack where provisions of section 34, P.P.C. were prima facie attracted‑‑Not being a fit case for interference, leave to appeal was refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307 & 34 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Bail grant of‑‑Dismissal of bail application by High Court‑‑Allegations showing that petitioner participated in a pre-concerted attack where provisions of section 34, P.P.C. were prima facie attracted‑‑Not being a fit case for interference, leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate, Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 25th April, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the bail application of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner and three others are involved in a case registered under sections 302 and 307, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shalimar, Lahore District. The allegation against him is that in the afternoon of 29‑3‑1986, at 2 p.m., he together with his companions, all carrying fire‑arms, went to the shop of Ahmad Din and his brothers Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Munir. The petitioner had a pistol with him. On seeing them Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Bashir tried to run away. Muhammad Munir climbed on the roof of an under‑construction house. One of the companions of the petitioner fired at him. Muhammad Munir was hit in the head and he died instantaneously. Another companion of the petitioner fired at Muhammad Bashir who was .hit in the leg. The petitioner hit the butt of his pistol on the head of Ahmad Din and told him not to come near. The motive for the attack was stated to be an incident which had taken place on the day prior to the occurrence. It was alleged that a brother‑in‑law of Muhammad Munir had snatched away the pistol of Navid, a companion of the petitioner. Later, after Navid had tendered an apology on the intervention of respectables of the locality, the pistol was returned to him.
3. The allegations made against the petitioner and his companions show that they had come armed to the scene of occurrence. The firing was resorted to without any immediate provocation. The petitioner too participated in the occurrence by hitting Ahmad Din with his pistol. It is a case of pre-concerted attack and the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code are prima facie attracted here. It is, therefore, not a fit case where we should interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M. I. /J‑7/S Petition dismissed.