2003 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NASIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NASIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NASIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Faqir Muhammad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Bail grant of-- Further inquiry
Accused, who was not named in the F.I.R., was alleged to have made extra-judicial confession
Accused was merely present with his co-accused who had fired at the deceased and accused had committed no overt act qua the deceased
Question of vicarious liability of accused for murder of deceased was to be gone into at the time of trial
Case of accused, in circumstances, was covered under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt
Judgment & Decree
Pervaiz Akhtar Gujjar for the State. Muhammad Nasir, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.437 dated 6-11-2002 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that he and his co-accused Muhammad Akram in furtherance of their common intention have committed the Qatl-e-Amd of deceased Muhammad Amjad.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is not named in the F.I.R.; that there is no direct evidence of the murder of the deceased against them; that the only role assigned to him in the statement of Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Zafar recorded on 9-11-2002 by the police is that he was merely present with his co-accused Muhammad Akram but has committed no overt act qua the deceased; that motive is also not directly relateable to him; that no recovery of incriminating material was effected from him and in such circumstances, the question that if he can be held liable for the alleged offence needs serious consideration and so his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars and is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he alongwith his co-accused had committed the Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Amjad deceased.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with help of available record.
6. He is not named in the F.I.R. Allegeldy, he had made extra- judicial confession before Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Zafar on 8-11-2002. According to their statements, he merely was present with his co-accused Muhammad Akram, who had fired at the deceased. So, according to their statement, he did not commit at any overt act qua the deceased. Thus, the question of his vicarious liability for his murder is to be gone into at the time of trial. His case, thus is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars and stated to be a previous non-convict.
7. In these circumstance, I find him entitled to bail. The petition therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-1962/L Bail granted.