1999 PLP 1090 (MLD)
ZULFIQAR ALI alias ZULFA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1090 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR ALI alias ZULFA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1090 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1090 (MLD)?
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: 1999 PLP 1090 (MLD) (ZULFIQAR ALI alias ZULFA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Sulehria for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149
Police opinion regarding innocence of accused having been based on the statements of two witnesses examined in defence after more than one year and three months of the occurrence and the plea of alibi of accused were not relevant at such stage, particularly when he had remained at large having absconded for about 1-1/2 years
Four eye-witnesses had linked the accused with the occurrence-- Vicarious liability of the accused could not be determined at such stage
Co- accused were still absconders
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Sulehria for Petitioner. Najam-ul-Hassan Gull for the State. The petitioner was declined bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide his order dated 14-4-1998 in a case registered against him and others under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.83 dated 3-8-1996 at Police Station Saddar Daska, District Sialkot for an occurrence in which Muhammad Imtiaz son of Muhammad Nawaz was murdered. At the time of occurrence, the petitioner made firing in the air while his co-accused armed with deadly fire arms such as .222 rifles had committed the murder.
2. The bail is prayed on the ground that the petitioner had been declared innocent by the police as he was allegedly not present at the spot during the occurrence and that he had not caused any fire-arm injury to the deceased as admittedly, he had fired in the air.
3. Learned counsel for the state has, however, opposed the bail application on the ground that the police had declared the petitioner innocent on the basis of statement of two witnesses appearing in defence on 28 -1997 i.e. after about one year and three months of the occurrence; that the petitioner remained absconder for about 1-1/2 year after the occurrence and was ultimately arrested on 22-9-1997 and that his co-accused are still at large having been declared absconders.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that there are four eye-witnesses linking the petitioner with the occurrence. Hence, plea of alibi at this stage, nor the opinion of the Police on that point, is very relevant particularly when the petitioner remained at large having absconded for about 1-1/2 year after the occurrence. The Police opinion is based on statements of two witnesses examined in defence after more than one year and three months of the occurrence. Keeping in view the statements of eye-witnesses, linking the petitioner with the occurrence, it will not be possible to come to a conclusion at this stage that the vicarious liability of the petitioner was distinguishable from his co-accused who are still absconders. The petitioner has no case for bail at this stage.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./Z.55/L/ Bail refused,