1995 PLP 787 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 787 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tassadiq Hussain Jillani, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code, of (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 787 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code, of (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 787 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tassadiq Hussain Jillani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 787 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Ikramuddin for Petitioner.
- Abdul Sattar Zafar for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/201/34‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Accused according to F.I.R. had come after the occurrence and assisted co‑accused in putting the dead bodies on fire‑‑‑Complainant in his supplementary statement and other witnesses had, however, alleged that the accused had caused hatchet injuries to the dead bodies which allegation was not supported by the inquest report and the medical evidence‑‑‑Involvement of accused and his vicarious liability under S.302, P.P.C, therefore, called for further inquiry‑‑‑Offence under S.201, P.P.C. did not fall‑within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused was not alleged to have misused the concession of bail‑‑‑Bail allowed to accused was not ‑ cancelled in circumstances. S.M. Rizvi, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has sought cancellation of respondent's bail on the following grounds:‑‑‑ (i) That there is evidence on record that respondent caused injuries on the dead bodies of Noor Muhammad and Mst. Sughran; (ii) that blood‑stained hatchet was recovered from the respondent; (iii) that prosecution evidence qua Asghar respondent is corroborated by medical evidence inasmuch as the post‑mortem report indicates that both the deceased had sharp‑edge injuries; (iv) that the respondent is connected with the motive part of the prosecution story.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused has opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail and has made following submissions:‑‑‑ (i) That the sharp‑edged injuries on the, person of the deceased were post‑mortem as per the opinion given by the Doctor who conducted post‑mortem examination; (ii) that there is no mention of the sharp‑edged injuries on the dead bodies in the inquest report; (iii) that the case qua . Asghar respondent is doubtful and in any case the same falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of State has not supported petitioner's prayer for cancellation of bail as according to him, there is no mention in the F.I.R. about the respondent being armed with a hatchet or his causing any injury to the dead body, that the F.I.R. is inconsistent with complainant's supplementary statement and that the medical evidence to the extent of respondent does not corroborate the prosecution story.
7. I have heard, learned counsel for the parties as also learned AA. ‑G. and have perused the record.
8. The F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner/complainant who is father of Noor Muhammad deceased. In the first part of the F.I.R. he does not mention about even the presence of Asghar respondent. According to F.I.R. Asghar respondent came to the spot when his co‑accused Anwar had already killed Noor Muhammad deceased: The only allegation levelled m the F.I.R. against the respondent is that he came later in time and assisted his brother co- accused Anwar in lifting the dead bodies, putting it on chaff and for having burnt the dead bodies. The inquest report is silent about the sharp‑edged injuries having been caused on the dead bodies. The Doctor who conducted the post‑mortem has, opined that the sharp‑edged injuries on dead bodies were s not ante‑mortem. The question of respondent's involvement 'and his vicarious liability under section 302, P.P.C. would call for further inquiry and the offence under section 201, P.P.C. does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise this is a petition for cancellation of bail and there is no allegation that the respondent misused the concession of bail or attempted to subborn the prosecution evidence.
9. For what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to allow this petition which is hereby dismissed.
10. Needless to observe, the observations contained in his order shall not affect the case of either side before the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑1992/L Petition dismissed.