1983 P Cr (PLP)
HABIB AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | HABIB AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (HABIB AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 497‑F.I.R. and statement recorded under S. 161, Cr. P.C. showing petitioner not causing any injury to deceased‑Allegedly giving simple injuries to prosecution witnesses‑Question of vicarious Liability requiring further inquiry‑Bail allowed. Muhammad Yousaf for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for Petitioners. Muhammad Yousaf for the State. This is an application on behalf of Habib, Gul Bahar, Gul Sher, Muhammad Bakhsh, Bagoo and Aziz petitioners in a case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C., registered at P.S. Abadpur vide F.I.R. No. 152/ 1980.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not press for the bail of Habib and Gul Bahar petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the application to this extent has already been disposed of as having not been pressed.
3. So far as petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 are concerned the allegations are that they with others in furtherance of common object caused the death of Suleman and injuries to Amir Bakhsh, Pir Bakhsh, Abdul Majid, Muhammad Shafi and Ghulam Haider. It is alleged that Bagoo was armed with hatchet and the others with sotas and they caused simple injuries to the P. Ws. and this fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the peculiar circumstances of the case the question of vicarious liability of petitioners 3 to 6 needs serious consideration.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. He argues that it is a clear case of vicarious liability and section 149, P. P. G. stands attracted to the case of the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that do far as petitioners Nos. 3 to 6, namely, Gul Sher, Muhammad Bakhsh, Bag and Aaiz, are concerned, they according to the F. I. R. and the statement recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. and as admitted by the learned counsel for the State did not cause any injury to the deceased but allegedly had given simple injuries to the P. Ws. The question of their vicarious liability in the circumstances of the case thus needs further inquiry. The petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 are, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with one surety, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Rahimyar Khan. M.Y.M Bail granted.