1980 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1980 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yusuf Ali Khan for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 4th February, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail, grant of‑[Murder‑case]‑Petitioners causing simple injuries to complainant and no injury on deceased attributed to them‑Contention that petitioners being vicariously liable for offence of murder no ground for bail made out‑Contention, held, misconceived since question of vicarious liability yet to be determined by‑ trial Court in light of evidence to be adduced at trial‑Bail allowed, in circumstances. Asad Hussain Zaidi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail, grant of‑[Murder‑case]‑Petitioners causing simple injuries to complainant and no injury on deceased attributed to them‑Contention that petitioners being vicariously liable for offence of murder no ground for bail made out‑Contention, held, misconceived since question of vicarious liability yet to be determined by‑ trial Court in light of evidence to be adduced at trial‑Bail allowed, in circumstances. Yusuf Ali Khan for Petitioners. Asad Hussain Zaidi for the State. Date of hearing : 4th February, 1979. Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Aslam petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and two others under sections 302 and 307/34, P. P. C. The allegations are that on 19th June, 1977 at 4 p. m. the petitioners and their co‑accused Muhammad Hanif and Sarwar while armed with lathis, caused injuries to Chiragh Din deceased, Bhag Din complainant and Ghulam Muhammad P. W. Co‑accused Muhammad Hanif gave two lathi blows to Chiragh Din deceased on his forehead and left shoulder as a result of which he later on died. The petitioners are alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the peti tioners are not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased and only simple injuries to the complainant have been attributed to them, therefore, they are entitled to the concession of bail. The learned State Counsel submits that the petitioners are named in the F. I. R. and a specific role has been attributed to them, therefore, no ground for bail is made out. The allegation against the petitioners is that they caused simple injuries to Bhag Din complainant. No injury to the deceased has been attributed to them. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that co‑accused Ghulam Sarwar who is alleged to have caused injuries to Ghulam Muhammad P. W., including two grievous injuries, was found innocent by the two investigating agencies and his plea of alibi was established by documentary evidence. The question of vicarious liability is to be determined by the trial Court in the light of evidence to be adduced at the trial. In the circumstances, I admit the petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satis faction of Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad. Bail allowed.