1999 PLP 1394 (YLR)
IJAZ HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus JAWAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1394 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | IJAZ HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus JAWAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1394 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1394 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1394 (YLR) (IJAZ HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus JAWAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khalil for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner has been charged for having ordered his son, namely, Mumtaz Hussain, the absconding accused, to kill Zahir Hussain son of the complainant namely, Jawad Hussain.
2. The absconding accused fired at Zahir Hussain and killed him on the spot. The complainant took the dead body of his son to Police Station, Asterzai, Tehsil and District Kohat, and lodged his report Vide F.I.R. No.367, dated 21‑12‑1998 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Both, the petitioner as well as his son absconding accused) absconded immediately after the occurrence.
4. After about two months of the occurrence the petitioner was arrested. His bail petition, in the first instance, was rejected by Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, Senior Civil Judge Kohat/Judicial Magistrate, Vide: his order dated 3‑3‑1999. After that his prayer for bail was refused by Jamshed Khan, Additional Sessions Judge. Kohat by his order recorded on 25‑3‑1999. Hence this petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case before me.
6. On a perusal of the available record, it is not possible for me to come to the conclusion that reasonable grounds do exist for believing that the petitioner has not committed the offence charged with. The reasons given by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kohat for not granting bail to the petitioner are quite convincing/sufficient. Accordingly I am of the view that the Additional Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion judiciously and I have no reason to interfere with the same. Reliance is placed on a case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State, reported as 1968 Supreme Court Monthly Review 1168, wherein it was held:‑‑ "The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Court below from which he now seeks leave to appeal. On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. were amply fulfilled in this case. The petition is dismissed."
7. This petition for bail is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./380/P Bail refused.