1987 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Awais Shahid for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302,307, 148 &149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused attributed fatal injury to deceased‑‑Cross‑case registered‑ Accused in cross‑case already on bail‑ ‑Co‑accused also on bail‑ Challans in both cases submitted in Court‑‑Case being that of further inquiry as to which party was aggressor bail was allowed. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Awais Shahid for Petitioner. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 4th March, 1987. Muhammad Sarwar petitioner alongwith five others stands charged for the murder of Mst. Chandar Bibi and for causing injuries to Mst. Rashida, Moti and Kheeloo Khan on 27‑7‑1986 with a hatchet and sticks. The occurrence was because of a dispute over the payment of labour charges for planting paddy.
2. During the occurrence, the petitioner was allegedly armed with a hatchet, while his co‑accused carried sticks. He is attributed fatal injury with a hatchet to Mst. Chandar Bibi deceased.
3. Bail is urged on the grounds that the complainant party has suppressed the true facts and as a matter of fact, it was guilty of aggression in that Bhure Khan, father of the petitioner: was inured by the complainant party resulting in six injuries to him, of which one was grievous. A cross case under section 325, P.P.C. has also been registered against them and all the accused are on bail. All the co‑accused of the petitioner are also said to be on bail. It is further stated that there is a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. According to the eye‑witnesses, Muhammad Sarwar petitioner has caused injury to the deceased with a hatchet, but no sharp‑edged weapon injury was found on her person and on the other hand, a lacerated wound was found on her person. It is also stated that there was no repetition of blows by him. The injuries suffered by Bhure Khan have not been explained at all by they prosecution in the F.I.R.
4. The Investigating Officer states that challans of both the cases have been filed in the Court. In the circumstances narrated above, it appears to be a case of further inquiry as to which party was guilty of aggression. Accordingly, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty‑five thousand) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to they satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Lahore. S.A./M‑206/L Bail granted.