1984 PCr (PLP)
GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PCr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PCr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Irshad Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PCr (PLP) (GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashar for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code. (V of 1898) S .497/498--penal Code (XLV of 1860)..S 302/307/440/148/149
Bail Fact that accused also suffered injuries suppressed by prosecution in first information report
Question which party was in actual possession of land where occurrence took place and who was aggressor a case of further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
Shujah-ud-Din Qureshi for the State. This is an application for bas8l in a case registered against the petitioners and another vide F.I.R. No. 217/82 with Police Station Midh Ranjha District Sargodha on 15-12-1982.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this application are that the petitioners herein namely Ghulam Rasul Muhammad Nazir Ahmad and Ghulam Hussain who expired in Jail were accused of offences under sections 302,307 440 1418/149 P.P.C. for having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly while armed with a hatchet and sticks and in pursuance of the common object thereof caused death of one Muhammad Hayat.
3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha rejected bail application of the petitioners by order dated 11-5-1983 on the ground that they were specifically named in the F.I.R. injuries were attributed to them and they were charged with the offence under section 302 P.P.C. which is a heinous one.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that according to the F.IR. the petitioners are not alleged to have caused any injury on the deceased Muhammad Hayat but are alleged to have caused simple and grievous injuries to the P.W.s therefore their case stands on different footing than that of Ghulam Hussain who allegedly inflicted two hatchet injuries on the head of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. He submitted that Mukhtar Ahmed P.W. received seven injuries at the hand of Ahmed petitioner who was armed with hatchet. Muhammad Aslam P.W. received four injuries with blund weapon at the hand of Muhammad Nazir petitioner. Muhammad P.W. received six injuries including one grievous injury at the hands of Ghulam Rasul petitioner. According to the F.I.R. the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly. So prima facie they shared common intention of Ghulam Hussain accused who alleged to have caused the death of Muhammad Hayat therefore prima facie the petitioners are vicariously responsible for the offences charged and their case is covered by section 497 (1) Cr.P.C.
6. I have perused the record and heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
7. During the course of occurrence Muhammad Nazir as well as Ghulam Rasul petitioners also suffered injuries. The prosecution has suppressed this fact in the F.I.R. Furthermore it will be a serious question for consideration at the trial as to which party was in actual possession of the land where the occurrence took place and who was the aggressor, therefore, it is a case of further inquiry under section 497 (2) Cr.P.C. In view of the above, the petitioners are granted bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner Bhalwal District Sargodha. M. Y. H. Bail granted.