1995 P Cr (PLP)
KHUDOO alias KHUDA BUX‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Mirza, J |
| Parties | KHUDOO alias KHUDA BUX‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Salahuddin Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (KHUDOO alias KHUDA BUX‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.459/336 & 34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Although the accused could not escape his vicarious liability under S.34, P.P.C. for the firing of his co‑accused by which complainant's brother had been injured, yet his case was still distinguishable from the case of co‑accused‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Jai Jai Veshno for Applicant. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A: G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.459/336 & 34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Although the accused could not escape his vicarious liability under S.34, P.P.C. for the firing of his co‑accused by which complainant's brother had been injured, yet his case was still distinguishable from the case of co‑accused‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Jai Jai Veshno for Applicant. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A: G. for the State. Office objection is over ruled.
2. Exemption is granted with all just exceptions.
3. The applicant is facing trial in Crime No.73/92 of Police Station Khanpur, District Shikarpur, which was recorded on 28‑8‑1992 at the instance of a complainant Dad Muhammad. According to him four persons tried to steal the buffaloes from his compound and he identified two of them, namely, Bahawal and Khuda Bux the latter being the applicant in the present bail application. It is alleged that when complainant and his brother Juno challenged the culprits, Bahawal fired and hit complainant's brother in the region of the chest. All the culprits are stated to have made their escape good. The applicant surrendered in Court on 19‑10‑1992 whereas co‑accused Bahawal was arrested on 13‑9‑1992. The bail application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M.. Khanpur on 26‑10‑1992. After hearing learned counsel of the applicant and learned A.A.‑G. I am of the view that whereas the applicant cannot escape his vicarious liability under section 34, P.P.C. for the firing by which brother of complainant was injured still a case of the applicant can be distinguished from the case of co accused Bahawal and I would grant him bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. N.H.Q./K‑373/K Bail granted.