1984 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 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 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Sultan Alam for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497/498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-Bail-Accused attributed proverbial japha and lalkara and causing injury by soti to prosecution witness-Circumstances strengthening fact that accused did not participate in offence-Mere fact that it was accused's wife about whom there was grievance against deceased not enough to show his participation in commission of offence-Case needing further inquiry--Bail granted. Ataul Haq Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 438-B of 1983, decided on 18th April, 1983. --S.497/498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-Bail-Accused attributed proverbial japha and lalkara and causing injury by soti to prosecution witness-Circumstances strengthening fact that accused did not participate in offence-Mere fact that it was accused's wife about whom there was grievance against deceased not enough to show his participation in commission of offence-Case needing further inquiry--Bail granted. M. Sultan Alam for Petitioner. Ataul Haq Khan for the State. The petitioner and two of his co-accused are accused of an offence under section 302, P. P. C. According to the F. I. R. it was the alleged illicit intimacy between the petitioner's wife and the deceased which led to the occurrence, but the actual role attributed to the petitioner is of lalkara and japha and of causing an injury with a soti to Ghulam Muhammad P. W. The medical evidence, however, does not go alongwith the allegations in the F. I. R. The injury on the arm of Ghulam Muhammad is by a sharp-edged weapon while the petitioner was allegedly carrying a soti. The japha and the lalkara alleged against the petitioner do not appear to be anything more than the proverbial japha and lalkara. The case of the petitioner that he did not participate in the offence, therefore, gains strength from these circumstances. The mere fact that it was his wife regarding whom there was a grievance against the deceased is not enough to show his participation in the occurrence for which two of his brother have also been named as accused; one of whom was actually injured though this fact was not revealed in the F. I. R. To my mind the circumstances of the case are such that the guilt of the petitioner depend on further inquiry. The petitioner may, therefore, be released on bail if he furnishes bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Khanewal. M. Y. H. Bail granted.