1985 PLP 875 (MLD)
K H IZ A R — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 875 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hasan, J |
| Parties | K H IZ A R — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 875 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 875 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Akhtar Hasan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 875 (MLD) (K H IZ A R — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149--Bail, grant of-- Fire-arm injury sustained by informant on his chest attributed to the petitioner but projectile travelled upward right up to scapula luckily saving heart--Investigation although conducted by different agencies yet none finding anything extenuating for petitioner--Allegedly petitioner and co-accused carried gun which, they used only at deceased but also at informant--Petitioner declined-bail in circumstances.
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhindar for petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
1983. 1978 S C M R 7; 1978 S C R 146; 1980 P Cr.L J 993; 1981 PCr.LJ 1232; 1981 S C M R 1092 and P L D 1978 S C 236 ref. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi for the State. A.K.Dogar for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
It is an application for bail in a case in which besides the petitioner four others were also invovled. One was shot dead and two were injured. The allegation against the present petitioner was that he like two others carried a gun, which all of them used in the firing not only at the deceased but also the informant. In fact, the injury sustained by the informant was attributed to the present petitioner. It landed on his sternum, travelled right upto his scapula where it is still embedded.
2. The remaining four accused were allowed bail after strenuous investigation made by no less than four agencies, which in their own way found that Gulzar and Yousaf co-accused were not involved at all, though they were shown in the F I R to have shot the deceased as also the other injured.
3. Learned counsel stressed that since the whole story was doubted by as many agencies, and further that since the main accused had already been allowed bail, there was no point in refusing it to the present petitioner, against whom the sole allegation was of having caused a simple injury, not to the deceased, but only to the informant. He placed reliance upon 1978 S C M R 7; 1978 S C M R 146; 1980 PCr.LJ 993 and 1981 P Cr. L J 1232, which no doubt created a sort of distinction in favour of an accused who caused only a simple injury by firearm.
4. On the other hand, Mr. A . K . Dogar, counsel for the complainant, assisted by Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi, for the State, contended that the rule laid down in 1978 S C M R 7, was not that invariable, and that lately it was modified in 1981 S C M R 1092 by holding that even a simple injury by firearm was enough to refuse bail on the principle of vicarious liability. Similar rule was laid down in P L D 1978 S C 236, which in fact was claimed to be clear in terms to apply to the present case.
5. Even if the petitioner is conceded some distinction, performance wise firing by him on the complainant at his chest by itself was no small contribution. The projectile travelled luckily for the injured, upwards to the scapula, but if it were to travel down on the left Side of his sternum, most probably his heart would have been affected it was just. a chance having nothing to make the petitioner's mentioned holier. Even the investigations conducted by as many agencies did nod find anything extenuating for him, and this circumstance further suggests his complicity. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. S. G. D. Bail declined.