1984 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH alias MAMDOO-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BAKHSH alias MAMDOO-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 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 1984 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: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BAKHSH alias MAMDOO-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Sultan Alam for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497/498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34
Bail--Parties inter se related-Occurrence taking place all of a sudden Accused only alleged to have caused simple injury to complainant Question of vicarious liability of accused needing further inquiry Bail granted. Moan-ud-Din Chaudhry for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Sultan Alam for Petitioner. Moan-ud-Din Chaudhry for the State. This is an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Bakhsh petitioner in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C, registered at Police Station, Jalalpur Peerwala, vide F.I.R. No. 115/82 dated 27-6-1982.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 3 others in furtherance of their common intention launched the murderous assault upon Nusrat Ali, Sultan Mahmood and Kabir complainant and thereby caused the death of Nusrat Ali and injuries to Sultan and Kabir. As for the petitioner it has been alleged that at the eventful time he was armed with a sarva and thereby caused simple injury on the persons of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties are inter-related and this occurrence took place when the complainant party including the mother of Mst. Faizan came to the house of Ashiq co-accused, the husband of Mst. Faizan and took her away from the house of her husband without the permission of her husband and as such the question of vicarious liability of the petitioner needs serious consideration. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. However, he has conceded that the injury allegedly caused by the petitioner to Kabir complainant has been declared simple.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the parties are inter-related and the occurrence took place all of a sudden. The petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased; the allegations against him are that he caused simple injury to the complainant. Without making any expression lest it may prejudice the merits of the case. I am of the opinion that the question of the vicarious liability of the petitioner in the circumstances of the case needs further enquiry. He is accordingly allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Shujabad. M. Y. H. Bail granted.