2000 P Cr (PLP)
QALIB ABBAS ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Falak Sher and Muhammad Asif Jan, JJ |
| Parties | QALIB ABBAS ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Falak Sher and Muhammad Asif Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (QALIB ABBAS ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Mazhar Ali Akhtar Naqvi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 9th February, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑No overt act had been ascribed to accused except the ineffective firing made by him with a kalashnikov which even subsequently, stood refuted by the admitted non‑recovery, of any crime‑empty of the said weapon of offence from the spot‑‑‑No incriminating article was recovered from the accused who was even alien to motive‑‑‑Accused had already suffered six months internment‑‑‑Case having been entrusted to the Crimes Branch for re investigation, commencement of trial was out of sight‑‑‑Accused was allowed bail in circumstances. Rasia Sarwat for the State. Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Warraich for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Post‑arrest bail is being sought in the case registered vide F.I.R. No.609 of 9‑8‑1998 under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Police Station Kunjah District Gujrat reporting the murder of complainant's paternal‑cousin Shahbaz Ahmad by rifle shot firing of co‑accused Tufail Hussain as members petitioner equipped with katashnikov resorted to indiscriminate firing.
2. Contending that no overt act has been ascribed to the petitioner save for the alleged ineffective kalashnikov's firing, that too subsequent to the event, factum whereof stands refuted by the admitted non‑recovery of any crime‑empty of the weapon in question nor any other incriminating article has been recovered from him, who is even alien to the motive on which count he has already suffered nearly six months internment, commencement of .the trial whereof is out of sight for the case having been entrusted to the Crimes Branch for re‑investigation.
3. Which has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as the State reiterating the prosecution story without dislodging the contentions urged upon instructions imparted by the police official in attendance equipped with the record.
4. Persuaded whereby the petitioner is allowed bail upon furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge concerned. N.H.Q./Q‑84/L Bail granted.