1988 P Cr (PLP)
SAIFULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | SAIFULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khizar Hayat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (SAIFULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Accused less than 16 years' age‑‑Proverbial Lalkara attributed to accused‑‑Accused going unarmed to place of occurrence‑‑Presence of accused on spot at time of occurrence, held, required further inquiry which could be held at trial‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Nemo for the State. Amir Muhammad Khan Joya for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Amir Muhammad Khan Joya for the Complainant. Saifullah, petitioner herein, stands arrested in a case under section 302, P.P.C. for committing the murder of Liaquat.
2. According to the prosecution, on 25‑4‑1987 at 7‑30 a.m. Sharaf Hussain, complainant, alongwith his brother Liaquat (deceased) was present outside his Dera when Saifullah, petitioner, empty‑handed and his brother Muhammad Abdullah armed with a gun came there. The petitioner shouted a Lalkara that Liaquat would not be spared whereupon Muhammad Abdullah, co‑accused, fired from his gun hitting Liaquat (deceased) in his chest as a result of which he fell down and died at the spot. The petitioner as well as the principal accused ran away from the spot. The deceased was killed for he was suspected as having illicit connection with Mst. Saleema, sister of the accused. The petitioner had been arrested. He applied for the grant of bail to the lower Court but remained unsuccessful, hence this application.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the complainant.
4. It is contended that the petitioner according to the police record is 14/15 years old; that he did not cause any injury to the deceased; and that only proverbial Lalkara is attributed to him, hence his participation in the crime appears to be doubtful. Replying, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that raising of Lalkara constitutes an overt act on part of the petitioner and as such he is not entitled to the grant of concession of bail.
5. In view of the fact that the petitioner who is described to be of less than 16 years' age by the prosecution itself and that he did not go to the place of occurrence duly armed, I think that it would require further inquiry whether or not the petitioner was present at the time of occurrence? Such an inquiry can now be held at the trial. The case of the petitioner thus appears to be covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be released subject to his furnishing in the sum of Rupees thirty thousand (Rs.30,000 only)l with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C . /Duty Magistrate, Lahore. S.A./S‑138/L Bail granted.