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 ALI versus AMJAD ALI


Criminal Procedure Code (CR PC) Section 497 (5) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), 5 302 bail, petitioner, revocation of a minor offender, the date of the incident is 14 years and 10 months, Is isolated in isolation. This discussion about victimization

1986 P Cr. L J 673

[Lahore]

Before Mazharul Haq, J

MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner

Versus

AMJAD ALI and another Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2688‑B of 1985, decided on 15th December, 1985.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑--

‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑ Petitioner, a juvenile offender, being about 14 years and 10 months old on day of occurrence, causing a solitary knife injury 'to victim‑ Contention that petitioner could not be allowed bail on ground of youth alone repelled‑‑Youth, held further, always considered a ground for bail‑‑Cancellation of bail declined in circumstances.

M. Yaqub Sheikh for Petitioner.

Sarfraz Hussain for the State.

Amjad Ahmad Sheikh for Respondent.

ORDER

Muhammad Ali, petitioner, has applied for the cancellation of bail allowed to Amjad Ali in the murder case pending against him.

2. The respondent was allowed bail on the ground of his youth. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since he acted in a cruel, brutal and unusual manner, therefore, he should not have been allowed bail on account of his age.

3. I have considered the matter. On the day of occurrence, respondent was 14 years and 10 months old. There is the solitary injury attributed to him with a knife to the victim. Youth has always been considered a ground for bail. It has been reported by the Sessions Judge that the case is to be fixed for 11‑1‑86. Under these circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for interfering in the bail order. This petition is dismissed with the direction to the office w, that the record of the case be sent back to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, forthwith, and after the despatch of the record, the office will bring it to my notice by tomorrow.

S. G. D. Petition dismissed.

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
Pakistan, top advocate family court from Farooqabad 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.