1989 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad J |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hameed Ullah Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused empty‑handed and was attributed only proverbial Lalkara to his son‑‑Accused found to have not participated in occurrence but challaned only on‑ insistence of complainant party‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Nazeer Hussain Mirza for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nazeer Hussain Mirza for the State. Vide F.I.R. No. 95, dated 9th of June, 1988, a case under the provisions of section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Piplan against the petitioner Ghulam Muhammad and his son Ghulam Farid.
2. The F.I.R. lodged by Nawaz discloses that the daughter of the informant Mst. Zarina was married with Latif son of the petitioner; the husband of Mst. Zarina was employed in Pakistan Army and Mst. Zarina was living with her in laws. According to the F.I.R., 2/3 days before the occurrence, Mst. Zarina had come back to the house of the first informant, her father, on account of some quarrels in the house of her in‑laws.
3. On the fateful day, Ghulam Farid, the brother of the husband of Mst. Zarina visited the house of the first informant for taking Mst. Zarina back to their house but the brother of Mst. Zarina, Muhammad Hasnain Raza refused to send Mst. Zarina with Ghulam Farid. On such refusal, there was an altercation and Ghulam Farid threatened Muhammad Hasnain Raza that he would teach him a lesson.
4. At about 4 p.m. on the same day, Ghulam Farid armed with Chhura while the petitioner Ghulam Muhammad empty handed visited the house of the first informant. Ghulam Farid raised a Lalkara that he would not spare Muhammad Hasnain Raza, the brother of Mst. Zarina and launched an attack and inflicted three blows with the Chhura on the chest of Muhammad Hasnain Raza (deceased). On the receipt of these injuries, Muhammad Hasnain Raza died at the spot while Ghulam Farid and Ghulam Muhammad petitioner, escaped from the scene of occurrence.
5. In support of this bail application, it is submitted that Ghulam Muhammad, petitioner, being father has been involved, he was empty handed and only a proverbial Lalkara has been attributed to him, and, therefore, he deserves the grant of bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner being father‑in‑law of Mst. Zarina would not have gone to that extent so as to have premeditated the attack alongwith his son Ghulam Farid.
6. During investigation, it was found that petitioner Ghulam Muhammad had not participated in the occurrence, but since, the complainant party insisted, therefore, the petitioner has also been challaned.
7. Considering, the case from all angles, I am of the view, that the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. I direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali. S.A./G‑259/L Bail allowed.