1985 PLP 980 (SCMR)
ABDUL RASHID Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 980 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C.J. and Muhammad Gul, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 980 (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 1985 PLP 980 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C.J. and Muhammad Gul, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 980 (SCMR) (ABDUL RASHID Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th November, 1975.
- A Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Senior Advocate instructed by Maqbool Ahmad,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 17‑9‑1975 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3867‑B/75). ‑‑‑5. 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail before arrest‑ Accusation in F.I.R. implicating accused‑‑Little chance of mistaken identity‑‑Question of accused's innocence or‑ guilt to be decided in enquiry/during trial‑‑Order refusing bail before arrest, upheld. A Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Senior Advocate instructed by Maqbool Ahmad, Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J.‑‑The' petitioner is charged alongwith others under section 302/34, P.P.C. Instead of surrendering to the police he applied to the High Court for bail before arrest. The application was dismissed by a learned Judge from which order he seeks leave to appeal. It is observed by the Learned Judge that the accusation in the F.I.R. implicates the petitioner and that the occurrence had taken place in broad day light meaning thereby that there was little chance of mistaken identity of the culprits. We fully agree with the High Court that the question of the petitioner's innocence or guilt will be decided only in the enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Cr.P. Code or during the trial. There is thus no occasior to grant him bail before arrest. The petition is dismissed. M.I. Leave refused.