1989 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR 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 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ali Khan for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Cod;, (XLV of 1860), S.307/148/149/109‑‑Bail‑‑Application for confirmation of bail‑‑One of co‑accused had got registered a case against complainant party wherein complainant party was granted bail‑‑Accused had only been attributed ineffective firing‑‑Interim bail already granted to accused was confirmed. Miss Yasmin Sehgal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ali Khan for Petitioners. Miss Yasmin Sehgal for the State. Date of hearing: 19th March, 1989. The petitioner has applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No. 49/48, dated 13‑5‑1988 registered at Police Station Noorkot, District Sialkot under section 307/148/149/109, P.P.C.
2. The allegations against the petitioner and other co‑accused were that they received Jagga Tax from the drivers of the complainant party. Thereupon on receipt of this information while the complainant alongwith others were going in bus No. 9750/FID to report this matter to D.S.P: Shakargarh and on their way the present two petitioners alongwith others armed with different weapons fired at the bus. However, according to the F.I.R. the complainant escaped.
3. It is pertinent to mention over here that initially section 17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 was also inserted but subsequently during the course of investigation the same was deleted.
4. The petitioner applied for pre‑arrest bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal vide his order dated 15‑2‑1989 refused to confirm their pre‑arrest bail earlier granted to them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has only been attributed ineffective firing and the other co‑accused who were similarly placed have already been granted pre‑arrest bail by the learned trial Judge while the concession of bail earlier granted to the petitioner on 7‑8‑1988 has been declined on 15‑2‑1989 without any justification. He has further stated that earlier to this one of the co‑accused namely Abdul Sattar got registered a Case No. 48 under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Noor Kot on 13‑5‑1988 and in that case the other side has also been granted the concession of bail. He has further stated that the case has been registered in a mala fide manner as a counter‑blast to the case registered against the complainant. Keeping this fact that the other side has also been granted bail and the petitioner has only been attributed ineffective firing. I confirm the ad interim bail already granted to the petitioner vide this Court's order dated 5‑3‑1989. M.Y.H./A‑654/L Bail confirmed.