1994 P Cr (PLP)
RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tariq Shamim for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/148/149
Bail, grant of-- Injuries attributed to accused were simple in nature punishment for which was not hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C,
Two co-accused having been declared innocent, vicarious liability of the accused was yet to be determined
Accused were neither previous convicts nor hardened criminals and were in judicial lock-up for over nine months
Judgment & Decree
Tariq Shamim for Petitioners. Ghulam Muhammad Malik for the State. The petitioners are accused in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.111/92, dated 30-6-1992, at Police Station Factory Area, District Sargodha, under section 324/148/149, P.P.C.
2. According to the F.I.R., in brief, the petitioners alongwith other co accused are alleged to have caused 46 injuries to the injured P.W. Arshad. Motive was stated to be the suspicion of co-accused Anwar that the father of the injured P.W. had killed his father for which he had been sentenced to 25 years' R.I.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the State were heard at length. Admittedly, the injuries attributed to the petitioners were simple in nature, and that out of all the injuries caused only one was declared grievous which is attributed to a co-accused and that is also on non-vital part of the body i.e. on the back of the left hand.
4. It was conceded on behalf of the State that the punishment for causing simple injuries is not hit by the prohibitory clause and that the two of the co accused have been declared innocent and that therefore, the vicarious liability of the petitioners is yet to be determined. It was further stated on behalf of the, State that the petitioners were neither previous convicts nor hardened; criminals and that they are no longer required by the police. The petitioners I are stated to be in judicial lock-up for the last over 9 months.
5. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, the petitioners are hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 each with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sargodha. N.H.Q./R-149/L Bail granted.