both the learned counsel cited some rulings which need to be noticed. In Muhammad Ayub v. Muhammad t Yaqub and another — 1966 PLD 1003

Citation: 1966 PLD 1003

Court: Lahore High Court

Year: 1969

Decision Date: 1969-04-18

Parties: AKBAR DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE

Headnotes

their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe at page 1015 of the report as follows "Of course, the mere existence of an order of commitment for trial need not be equated with a finding that "there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent was guilty of an offence, punishable with death or transportation for life". Only a prima facie case must be deemed to exist against him on the basis of the order of the commitment." In Noor Samand v.

Judgment Text

Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah Title: AKBAR DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 885 of 1969 Date of Judgment:1969-04-18 Reported As: 1970 P Cr. L J 559 Result: Bail allowed JUDGMENT JUDGMENT Three persons, namely, Akbar Din, Habib Ullah and Saif Ullah, have applied for bail under section 498, Cr. P. C. In a murder case. The question of bail relating to Muhammad Akram, a co-accused of the petitioner, has earlier been, considered by this Court in Crl. Misc. 1003 of 1968. It was held that he (Muhammad Akram) was entitled to bail. 2. The allegations, briefly, are that Abdul Aziz complainant and one Akbar are brothers. They had joint lands. The allegation further goes that they had privately partitioned that land. There were some shisham trees standing on the common banna which were cut by the sons of Akbar Din accused. Abdul Aziz and his sons, i. e. Amanat Ali, Rehmat Ali and Karamat Ali objected to it. A fight ensued in which both the parties were injured. Karamat Ali died as a result of blunt weapon injuries on his head. Muhammad Akram, accused who has already been released on bail, and Akbar Din petitioner were carrying dangs while Habib Ullah and Saif Ullah petitioners were carrying hatchets. The latter two petitioners are said to have used the blunt side of their hatchets. The fatal injuries on the head of the deceased, admittedly, could not be caused by all the four accused persons. 3. The learned Additional…

Read the full judgment on Al Wakeelo — Pakistan's AI-powered legal research platform.