1989 PLP 4981 (MLD)
SARFRAZ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4981 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | SARFRAZ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4981 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4981 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4981 (MLD) (SARFRAZ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307 & 148/149‑‑Bail, ‑grant of‑ Accused, aged about 70 years found not present at the spot at the time of occurrence‑‑Interim bail already granted to said accused was confirmed in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307 & 148/149‑‑Bail grant, of‑‑Accused found present at spot at time of occurrence‑‑Medical Certificate produced by accused, found false by Medical Board constituted under order of Court‑‑Grant of bail not justified by conduct of accused‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Mian Najam‑uz‑Zaman, Addl. A.‑G. and Zafar Yasin for the State. Raja Muhammad Anwar for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Najam‑uz‑Zaman, Addl. A.‑G. and Zafar Yasin for the State. Raja Muhammad Anwar for the Complainant. This order will dispose of the bail petitions (Crl Misc. 272‑B/1989) moved by Sarfraz Khan and (Cr1.Misc. 396‑B/1989) moved by Mussarat Abbas in case FIR No. 107 dated 8‑10‑1985 under section 148/302/307/149 P.P.C.
2. The petitioners alongwith others stand charged for the murder of Ahmad son of Shah Muhammad and for murderously assaulting Allah Yar and Rahmat Khan P.Ws. with guns. The allegations against the petitioners are that they had brought their co‑accused to the spot m a Jeep and that the murder was committed at their behest.
3. Bail for Sarfarz Khan petitioner is urged on the grounds that he is 70 years of age; that no direct part in the occurrence is attributed to him and that in most of the investigations he was found innocent being not present at the spot at, the material time. Mussarat Abbas petitioner has also pleaded for bail on the above grounds as also on the ground of sickness. According to him he is a heart patient.
4. The applications have been strongly contested by the State and the complainant party. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that both the petitioners are vicariously liable for the act of their companions and that a Senior Officer of the rank of A.I.‑G. had come to the conclusion that the murder was committed at their behest. It is further submitted that Mussarat Abbas petitioner has submitted false medical certificates and is hale and hearty. Further that their conduct does not justify the grant of bail to them because they had been absonding for a long time.
5. Although no direct part is the occurrence is attributed to the petitioners but they are alleged to have taken their co‑accused to the spot in their Jeep. Mr. Ahmad Nasim A.I.‑G. (Training), Lahore had come to the conclusion that the murder was committed at their behest. On the basis of the investigation carried out by him he found that Mussarat Abbas petitioner was present at the spot at the relevant time while Sarfraz Khan petitioner was not.
6. Sarfraz Khan petitioner is an old man of 70 years of age. Accordingly he is considered entitled to bail. The interim bail granted to him by this Court on 25‑3‑1989 is confirmed.
7. As regards Mussarat Abbas petitioner he has been found to be present at the spot at relevant time by Mr. Ahmad Nasim, A.I.‑G. (Training) on the basis of a thorough investigation conducted by him. His conduct also does not justify the grant of bail to him because he had produced false medical certificates of sickness before this Court. He was ordered to be examined by the medical board which has reported that his examination/investigation did not reveal any evidence of heart disease and that other tests could not be undertaken for lack of co operation on his behalf. Accordingly his application is dismissed. SA./S‑510/L Partly accepted.