Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Section 497 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 302/34/109 Guarantees were not charged on bail and only charged that they died with a co-accused. Was on the side and they both ran away from the case together with the bail for the extension of the accused

1984 M L D 1532

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J

MUHAMMAD ARIF--Petitioner

versus

THE STATE--Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3002/B of 1983, decided on 12th February, 1984.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34/109--Bail--No overt act attributed to accused and only allegation against him being that he had gone towards deceased alongwith co-accused and both of them ran away from spot together--Case for enlargement of accused on bail, held, made out.

Muhammad Yaqub Punnu Barrister-at-Law for Petitioner.

Muhammad Naeem for the State.

ORDER

Muhammad Arif petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and another under section 302/34/109, P.P.C.

The F.I.R. version is that on 31st August, 1983 at 8-30 p.m. co-accused Jamil alias Jeela gave Chhuri blows to Muhammad Aslam alias Achoo deceased as a result of which he died at the spot. Thereafter Muhammad Bashir P.W, informed the complainant that Jamil alias Jeela co-accused and Muhammad Arif petitioner had gone towards the deceased together.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant material. No overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. The only allegation against him is that he had gone towards the deceased alongwith his co-accused and both of them ran away from the spot together. I therefore, feel inclined to the view that a case for the enlargment of the petitioner is made out. Consequently, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad.

M. Y. H. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Kotla Jam lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.