1983 P Cr (PLP)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 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: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497-Bail, grant of-Petitioners, accused of murderous assault, causing only simple injuries to victim of assault whereas co-accused responsible for grievous injury already enlarged on bail-Question of vicarious liability of petitioners also requiring further inquiry Petitioners allowed bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for bail on behalf of Khushi Muhammad, Zahid Hussain and Abid Hussain, petitioners in a case under section 307/326/149/ 148, P. P. C. registered at Police Station Old Kotwali, Multan vide F. I. R. No. 603, dated 31st July, 1981.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners alongwith others in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault upon Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad Khan on 31st July, 1981 at 7-00 a. m. in the area of Shamasabad Colony, Multan. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it is alleged that Khushi Muhammad and Abid Hussain armed with sotas and Zahid Hussain armed with a hatchet, caused simple injuries on the person of Hafiz. Muhammad Ahmad Khan, victim.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the co-accused namely, Din Muhammad, who was attributed grievous injury, has been allowed bail by this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1035-B/ 81.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed this application:
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the co-accused namely, Din Muhammad, has been allowed bail by this Court. The petitioners caused simple injuries to the victim. In these circumstances, the question of their vicarious liability needs further inquiry. The petitioners are allowed bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Multan. Bail granted.