1990 PCr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PCr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PCr (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: 1990 PCr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Bilal Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/148/149/109
Accused did not fire any shot at deceased, but after deceased had fallen allegedly fired at prosecution witness who received simple injuries on non-vital part of his body-- Accused was in jail for the last eleven months and there was background of enmity between the parties
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Gulzar Muhammad for the Complainant. Nur-ul-Hassan Rizvi for the State Muhammad Latif petitioner alongwith 10 others is charged with the murder of Muhammad Iqbal deceased and for murderously assaulting Faqir Muhammad, Abdul Hafiz and Faiz Muhammad P.Ws. with fire arms on 26-10-1988.
2. The motive for the offence was that a day before the occurrence Muhammad Iqbal deceased had got a case registered against Muhammad Latif petitioner, Mushtaq, Ishtiaq and Mumtaz etc. under section 148/324/336/149, P.P.C. for cutting maize crop from his fields and subjecting them to beating on preventing them from doing so.
3. The petitioner and his companions are alleged to have attacked the r complainant party when they were sitting near the main gate of the house of Muhammad Siddique. The deceased was allegedly fired at by Arif and Ashiq co -accused. The petitioner is alleged to have fired at Abdul Hafiz P.W. on his thigh.
4. Bail is sought on the ground that no injury to the deceased is attributed to the petitioner and only simple injuries to Abdul Hafeez P.W. on a non-vital part of the body are attributed to him, that he has been involved being a close relative of Arif and Ashiq accused to whom fatal injuries are attributed.
5. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have opposed the bail. According to them he is vicariously liable for the act of his co-accused. They further contend that an active role in the occurrence is attributed to him.
6. The petitioner is not alleged to have fired any shot at the deceased He allegedly fired at a P.W. after the deceased had fallen. The injuries suffered by Abdul Hafeez at his hands were simple in nature and were on a non-vital part of the body. He is behind the bars since 4-11-1988. There is a background of enmity between the parties. In these circumstances, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.25.000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sheikhupura. N.H.Q./M-1711/L Bail granted