1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 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: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing; 13th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner empty handed at time of occurrence and allegedly raised Lalkara and tried to strangulate deceased who had fallen down on receipt of knife injuries at the hands of his co‑accused yet no ligature mark present on deceased's neck‑‑Mere presence of bluish discolouring in front of right side of neck of deceased, held, would not show that deceased was strangulated‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Shaukat Hussain for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner. Shaukat Hussain for the State. Date of hearing; 13th February, 1988. This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Shafi petitioner in case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Toba Tek Singh vide F I.R. No.120/1987 dated 26‑8‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 4 others in furtherance of their common object caused the death of Abdul Hameed deceased in the area of Chak No.297 G.B. on 26‑8‑1987 at 6‑30 a.m. As for the petitioner, it has been alleged that he had raised Lalkara and also tried to strangulate Abdul Hameed after he had fallen down on receiving knife injuries at the hands of Muhammad Haneef and Muhammad Akram co‑accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that he raised proverbial Lalkara and had also tried to strangulate the deceased whereas the symptoms of strangulation are not borne out from the post‑mortem report, The learned counsel for the State has seriously opposed this application on the ground that the injuries found on the neck of the deceased support the allegations against the petitioner that he had strangulated the deceased.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioner was empty handed at the time of occurrence; that the external and internal examination of the dead body does not indicate symptoms of strangulation. There was no ligature mark on the neck, the marks produced by the finger and the thumb which are usually found on either side of throat in case of strangulation were not found present and that the lungs and heart were found normal. In this view of the matter, the mere presence of bluish discolouring of 4 cm x 3 cm in front of the right side of neck does not reasonably show that Abdul Hameed was strangulated by the petitioner and that although the petitioner had motive to do away with the deceased, as alleged in the F . I . R . yet he did not come armed to the place of occurrence. For what has been said above, I feel that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner has been made out. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C . /Duty Magistrate, Toba Tek Singh. S.G.D./M‑740/L Bail allowed.