1981 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ETC. Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1981 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ETC. Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 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 1981 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ETC. Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Begum Rehana Sarwar for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497/498-Bail -- Vicarious liability-Record showing deceas ed being not hit by petitioners and only P. Ws. suffered simple injuries at their hands-Question of vicarious liability, held, should not be deeply examined at bail stage-Whether or not petitioners shared common intention to commit murder of deceased being matter requiring further inquiry, case apparently falling within purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C.--Bail granted in circumstances.-[Vicarious liability]. Sh. Ejaz Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Begum Rehana Sarwar for Petitioners. Sh. Ejaz Ali for the State. A case was registered against the petitioner and 8 others under sec tion 302/307/148/149/447, P. P. C. A dispute subsisted between the parties regarding the possession on of land. The allegation is that the petitioner N. 2 and Ahmad Nawaz co-accused trespassed into the land, which was in possession of the deceased and cultivated by her husband, i.e. the com plainant. The complainant came to the site. He was followed by Mst. Alam Khatoon deceased, the petitioner and the co-accused fired at her as well as P. Ws. with the result that she was hit fatally and whereas P. Ws. were also injured.
2. The bail having been refused to the petitioners by the learned Sessions Court they have now moved this Court to the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that they did not fire at the deceased; the only role attributed to them is that they fired at the P. Ws. but the injuries suffered by them have been declared simple. It is submitted that the question of vicarious liability should not be determined at this stage end that the petitioners' case requires further inquiry.
3. Bail has been opposed on behalf of the State on the plea that the petitioners were armed and that they participated in the occurrence. It is further contended that the land was in possession of the deceased and her husband and that the petitioners trespassed and were thus the aggressors.
4. It transpires from the perusal of the record that the deceased was not hit by the petitioners: only the P. Ws. namely Khan Zaman, Noor Khan and Muhammad Khan suffered injuries at their hands. These were however declared simple. I am inclined to agree with the petitioners learned counsel that the question of vicarious liability should not be deeply examined at the bail stage. Whether or not the petitioners shared the common intention to commit murder of Mst. Alam Khatoon deceased and launched a murderous assault on P. Ws. is a matter which needs further inquiry. The case apparently fails within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C.
5. For all these reasons the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, namely Muhammad Yaqoob and Dost Muhammad are enlarged on bail provided each one of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commis sioner, Mianwali. Bail allowed.