1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, CJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner 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: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Saeed Khan Khosa for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th September, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused neither named in F.I.R, nor was alleged to be armed with anything and no overt act was attributed to him‑‑No evidence whatsoever existed to even suggest that accused was remotely connected with motive‑‑Accused admitted to bail. Yasmin Sehgal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 14th September, 1987. Muhammad Akram son of Ahmad Din, Muslim Sheikh, resident of Gurdaspura Dakhli, Tehsil Depalpur District Okara, has applied for bail after arrest. He alongwith others is an accused in a, murder case registered at Police Station Depalpur on 21‑1‑1987 at the instance of Muhammad Khan. Fakhar Hayat Wattoo was alleged to have been murdered at his Dera in Mauza Sawzwar Sidharkay.
2. He applied for bail before the Sessions Judge. His application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Okara, by order dated 13‑7‑1987. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R.; not even alleged to be armed with anything and no overt act has been attributed to him. It was further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever to even suggest that the petitioner is remotely connected with the motive alleged by the prosecution in the F.I.R. According to the counsel, there is no evidence against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel finally submitted that even if the prosecution allegations, without conceding, are accepted to be correct, the case against the petitioner is of further enquiry. No effective argument has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the State. The application is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Depalpur. H.B.T./M‑1170/L Bail granted.