1996 PLP 884 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 884 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure bode (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 884 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure bode (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 884 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 884 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taqi Ahmad 1khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 20th September 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Co'qe (XLV of 1860), S.302/323/148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ F.I.R. showed that accused raised Lalkara and on his instigation co‑accused armed with pistol committed murder of deceased‑‑‑Accused was closely related to co‑accused who committed murder‑‑‑Role attributed to accused, thus, was not that of simple provisional Lalkana but amounted to instigation‑‑‑Accused was rightly held not entitled to bail in circumstances. Noora v. State 1994 PCr.LJ 311 and Muhammad Rashid v. State 1979 SCMR 1992 ref. Naeem Ullah Khan Sherwani for the Complainant. Miss Tasneem Amin for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Naeem Ullah Khan Sherwani for the Complainant. Miss Tasneem Amin for the State. Date of hearing: 20th September 1995. Muhammad Ashraf along with others was reported against vide F.I.R. No.238, dated 27‑6‑1,995 for offences under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Pasroor, District Sialkot.
2. According to F.I.R., the petitioner raised Lalkara and on his instigation, other CO‑accused namely Muhammad Afzal while armed with pistol committed the murder of Abdul Qadus son of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to F.I.R. it self no at is attributed to the petitioner and only Lalkara is attributed to him and that there is t1o motive alleged in the F.I.R. against the petitioner who has no concern with tile rest of accused. Learned counsel further added that the petitioner has no relations with the accused and is only just a labourer.
4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific role of Lalkara and he being a related to the other accused has the motive to commit the offence.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. During the investigation, it has been established on the record that the petitioner is son‑in‑laq, of Rehmat co‑accused and also the maternal‑first cousin of Muhammad Asghar etc. It was held in the case of Noor v. State 1994 PCr.LJ 311 that Lalkara was always to be adjudged in its true perspective taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. It was also held that the degree of interest in the crime possessed by the person who shouted the Lalkara and the part he played in the background of the affairs is also to be seen. In the A instant case, the petitioner is closely related to the other co‑accused, as such, the role attributed to him is not that of simple proverbial Lalkara but amounts to instigation. The question of vicarious liability can also be gone into at bail stage as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Rashid v State 197.9 SCMR 1992.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Resultantly, this petition stands dismissed. H.B.T./M‑2700/L Petition dismissed.