1987 P Cr (PLP)
AHMAD and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mazhar‑ul‑Haq, J |
| Parties | AHMAD and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazhar‑ul‑Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (AHMAD and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mehr Ghulam Ali Mobashir for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
M. Iqbal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2625/B of 1986. ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 120‑B, 148 & 302/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Conspiracy‑‑Evidence of overhearing planning of murder by two witnesses‑‑No other evidence of conspiracy against accused witness named in F.I.R. but his statement recorded after 8 days‑‑Statement of other witness also recorded on same day‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Mehr Ghulam Ali Mobashir for Petitioners. M. Iqbal for the State. Ahmad, Umra, Haji Ahmad and Munir alongwith six others are accused of the murder of one Fazal Ahmad. The case was registered against them at Police Station Bhalwal District Sargodha on 28‑6‑1986.
2. Ahmad petitioner's son was murdered on 14‑10‑1985. Zafar Iqbal son of Fazal Ahmad deceased in this case was challaned. It is alleged that seven days before the occurrence in this case the petitioners and the other accused were planning the murder and their conversation was overheard by Muhammad Hayat. Again four days before the occurrence in this case, similar conversation was overheard by Muhammad Nawaz when he passed near the Dera of Ahmad, petitioner. Besides the fact that Ahmad had a motive. and the evidence of Hayat and Nawaz, there is no other evidence of conspiracy against the petitioners although Muhammad Nawaz is named in the F.I.R. which was registered on 28‑6‑1986 yet his statement was recorded on 6‑7‑1986 and on the same day, statement of Hayat was recorded. In view of these circumstances, petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C . /Duty Magistrate Bhalwal. S . A . / A‑13/ L Bail granted.