1989 PLP 4677 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ADIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4677 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ADIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4677 (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 1989 PLP 4677 (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: 1989 PLP 4677 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ADIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Ijaz Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 436, 148, 149 & 109‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Accused did not cause any injury to deceased‑‑Shots fired by accused hit the wall of the house before the attack was initiated‑‑Accused had not fired at deceased while chasing him‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Tauqeer Ullah Shah Assisted by Arshad Mehmood for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Ijaz Khan for Petitioner. Tauqeer Ullah Shah Assisted by Arshad Mehmood for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Adil petitioner in case under sections 302, 436, 148, 149 and 109 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Satiana. vide F.I.R. No. 213 dated 1‑8‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 12 other variously armed, in furtherance of their common object launched attack on Naik Muhammad and caused his death on 1‑8‑1987 in the area of Chak No. 39/ GB of Police Station Satiana. As for the petitioner, it has been alleged that before the actual attack on Naik Muhammad, the petitioner had come to the house of Allah Dad, brother of the deceased and fired shot hitting the wall of his house and thereafter had chased the deceased without firing any shot on him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased and as such, the question of his vicarious liability in not free from doubt. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the: learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased although he was carrying carbine at the time of occurrence; that he allegedly fired shots hitting the wall of the house of the brother of the deceased before the attack could be initiated on the deceased and that he had not fired any shot on the deceased while chasing him. For what has been said above, without making any expression on the question of the vicarious liability of the petitioner, I feel that a case for grant of bail to him has been made out. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad. S.A./M‑1632/L Bail granted.