MLD 1989

1989 PLP 2710 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 602/B of 1989, decided on 31st May, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Nazir Akhtar, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 2710 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Nazir Akhtar, J
Parties MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2710 (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 1989 PLP 2710 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Nazir Akhtar, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2710 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Sahibzada Farooq Ali Khan and Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34--Bail--No overt act attributed to accused who allegedly raised only proverbial Lalkara which did not necessarily indicate an intention to kill--Accused were not directly connected with motive and did not use the Dangs with which they were armed--Question whether accused shared intention of co-accused to kill deceased could be properly decided at the trial--Petitioners were admitted to bail in circumstances. Nemo for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Sahibzada Farooq Ali Khan and Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. This is an application for bail filed by Muhammad Hanif and Habib sons of Haji Sher Muhammad in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 18/89 dated 8-2 1989 under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Sahooka, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari.

2. According to the prosecution story, due to a dispute over the purchase of 5-1/2 Kanals of agricultural land by Hassan Bakhsh deceased, Haji Sher Muhammad had a grouse against him. The deceased and Muhammad Iqbal left the land and got it mutated in the name of Haji Sher Muhammad about one month prior to the occurrence. Despite that, Haji Sher Muhammad accused told Mian Qutab Din, complainant, and Muhammad Iqbal not to come towards Chak No. 37/KB. Thereupon, abuses were exchanged between the complainant and Haji Sher Muhammad accused. On 6-2-1989 at about 5-00 p.m., Muhammad Iqbal son of Ismail and Hassan Bakhsh deceased were going towards the Bhaini of Ghulam Muhammad in Chak No. 37/KB. When they reached near the Bhaini, Haji Sher Muhammad and Lal Din, accused, armed with Sotas, came running after Hassan Bakhsh. It is alleged that the petitioners armed with Dangs were also coming running after them and raising Lalkaras that they should not escape. Haji Sher Muhammad accused gave a Sota blow on the head of the deceased. Lai Din also gave a Sota blow on his head, whereupon he fell down. Thereafter, all the accused persons went away to their houses with their respective weapons.

3. Admittedly, no overt act in the commission of the alleged offence has been attributed to the petitioners. Only a proverbial Lalkara is attributed to them. The precise words of the Lalkara mentioned in the F.I.R. are (AJJ YAAH JANNA NA PAYYA). These words do not necessarily indicate an intention to kill. At the most, the words of the Lalkara show that Muhammad Iqbal and the deceased must be stopped and be not permitted to escape. The contents of the F.I.R. also show that the dispute about the purchase of the land was resolved because the deceased got the land mutated in the name of Haji Sher Muhammad accused. Haji Sher Muhammad merely desired that Hassan Bakhsh and Muhammad Iqbal should not go towards that area. There was no other enmity between the parties. Hence, in this background, the words of the Lalkaras cannot be constrained to demonstrate an intention to kill. Moreover, the petitioners are not directly connected with the motive emanating from the purchase of land by the deceased and its subsequent transfer to Haji Sher Muhammad co-accused. The question as to whether the petitioners shared the intention of the co-accused to kill the deceased can be properly decided only after recording evidence by the trial Court. The petitioners were allegedly armed with Dangs but they did not use the same either for causing any blow to the deceased or to any of the P.Ws. At this stage prima facie, there appear to be no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are guilty of the offence of murder.

4. For the foregoing reasons, I accept this application and allow bail to the petitioners subject to their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Burewala. N.H.Q./M-1352/L Bail granted.