1987 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. SAIRA BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH and 5 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | Mst. SAIRA BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH and 5 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. SAIRA BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH and 5 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Dilawar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑Accused, allegedly, issuing threats of dire consequences to the prosecution witnesses and petition for cancellation of bail supported by affidavits of petitioner as well as report lodged at the police station‑‑Accused intentionally avoiding appearance in Court despite notice and thus failed to rebut the allegation ‑‑Bail cancelled, in circumstances. Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3444/B of 1986, decided on 26th January, 1987. ‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑Accused, allegedly, issuing threats of dire consequences to the prosecution witnesses and petition for cancellation of bail supported by affidavits of petitioner as well as report lodged at the police station‑‑Accused intentionally avoiding appearance in Court despite notice and thus failed to rebut the allegation ‑‑Bail cancelled, in circumstances. Syed Dilawar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner. Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for the State. Despite repeated calls the respondents have not appeared. Mst. Saira petitioner, her learned counsel Syed Dilawar Hussain, Advocate, and the learned State counsel states that few minutes earlier Zafar and Muhammad Saeed respondents were present outside the Court. Perusal of the complaint shows that the remaining respondents are their co‑ villagers and that Zafar respondent is the son of Allah Bakhsh respondent and nephew of Asghar and Nur Akbar respondents while Muhammad Saeed respondent is the son of Wali Muhammad respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that as per his instructions the remaining respondents are fully aware that petition is fixed for hearing today and they have intentionally failed to appear. I am satisfied that the respondents are intentionally avoiding appearance in this Court.
2. Cancellation of bail is sought on the ground that offence under' section 302, P.P.C. is punishable with death and that the respondents have abused the concession of bail inasmuch as they have held out threats of~ dire consequences to the petitioner and Aslam P.W. The petition is, supported by the affidavits of the petitioner and aforementioned Aslam. Aslam also lodged a report on 28‑10‑1986, at police Station Tandlianwala to the effect that on 27‑10‑1986 Asghar and others challenged him that he would meet the fate of Pehlwan deceased if he appeared as a witness against them. The respondents have not cared to appear to rebut the allegation. I am, therefore, satisfied that they have abused the concession of bail. Accordingly, their bail is cancelled. They shall be taken into custody and sent to jail. S.G.D./S‑42/L Bail cancelled.