1987 PLP 1783 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1783 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1783 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1783 (MLD)?
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: 1987 PLP 1783 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Sarwar for Petitioners
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(5)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307--Bail, cancellation of--Accused allegedly armed with a rifle yet he caused no injury either to deceased or to the prosecution witnesses nor any weapon recovered from him--Accused also found innocent during investigation and was placed in column No. 2 of challan--'Question of vicarious liability of accused; yet to be determined--Cancellation of bail declined, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ghulam Sarwar for Petitioners This is an application for the cancellation of bail granted to Muhammad Yousaf respondent by the Add'. Sessions Judge, Lahore on 15-4-1987, in case under section 302/307/34, PPC registered at Police Station Shad Bagh vide FIR No.209/86 dated 4-9-1986.
2. The prosecution case is that the respondent No.l and three, others, variously armed, in furtherance of their common intention, launched murderous assault on Muhammad Mahmood, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif and caused the death of Muhammad Mahmood and injuries to Muhammad Ramzan PW.
3. As for respondent No.l, it has been alleged that he was armed with 7 M.M. Rifle; that he alongwith Javed co-accused dragged Muhammad Mahmood deceased to a nearby hotel where Javed co-accused gave second dagger blow on the left side of his chest and that the respondent also tried to give a butt blow to Muhammad Sharif complainant but it hit the wall and resultantly the rifle was broken.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient overt act has been attributed to the respondent; that he was not only armed with 7 M.M. Rifle but also dragged the deceased to a hotel and also attempted to give a butt blow to the complainant; that the eye-witnesses named in the FIR have supported the allegations against him and that the opinion of the police with regard to the innocence of the respondent is not binding on the courts.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the respondent having been found innocent, his name was placed in column No.2 of the challan; that the A.S.P. who conducted the investigation came to the conclusion that the respondent was not even present at the spot at the time of occurrence; that he did not cause any injury to the deceased or to the P.Ws. that no weapon has been recovered from him; that although r4 he was allegedly armed with 7 M.M. Rifle yet he did not fire at the' deceased or the P.Ws. and that in any case, the question of the vicarious liability needs further enquiry. It is well-settled that considerations for the grant of bail and cancellation of the same are, altogether different and once bail is granted by a court of competent] jurisdiction, strong grounds would be required for interfering with the discretion exercised by it, which I do not see in the case hand. For what has been said above, there being no merits, the petition is dismissed in limine. S.G.D./M-248/L Petition dismissed.