2000 P Cr (PLP)
NASIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NASIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 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 2000 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: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (NASIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Shabbir Langrial for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Accused had not caused any injury to the deceased and he was only attributed the role of ineffective firing
Question of vicarious liability of accused in the murder was yet to be determined
Weapon allegedly recovered from accused was the licensed fire-arm of his father--=Case of accused in circumstances, required further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner is arrested in case F.I.R. No.429 of 1997, dated 24-7-1998 under section 302/34, P.P.C: registered at Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he being armed with rifle 8 mm alongwith Muhammad Rafi son of Muhammad Siddique being armed with .12 bore gun made a murderous assault upon Asghar. Petitioner's fire did not hit Asghar deceased whereas the fire of Muhammad Rafiq hit the left shoulder of Asghaf deceased, who fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the firing made by the petitioner was ineffective, that no empty was recovered from the spot; that the rifle recovered was also licensed one and lastly contends that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 1-1/2 years but the trial has not yet concluded. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the State have opposed on the grounds that the challan has been submitted in Court and the trial has. already commenced. Further that it is a daylight occurrence and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased and the only role attributed to the petitioner is of ineffective firing. The question of vicarious liability of the petitioner is yet to be determined. The weapon allegedly recovered from petitioner is licensed arm of the petitioner's father.
5. In the above circumstances the case of the petitioner is covered under section. 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial N.H.Q./N-164/L Bail granted.