1989 PLP 4802 (MLD)
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4802 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhary, J |
| Parties | MOHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4802 (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 4802 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhary, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4802 (MLD) (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sajjad Sarwar Gilani for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 22nd July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.307 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No active role was attributed to accused‑‑Police declared accused as innocent during investigation‑‑Rife was not recovered with which the accused was allegedly armed at the time of occurrence‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 22nd July, 1989. The petitioner along with Shahu, Ghulam Ali, Allah Yar, Amir, and Munir were involved in a case under sections 307/148/149 P.P.C., registered. with Police Station, Kot Moman, District Sargodha, at the instance of Muhammad Akbar. It was alleged by the complainant that on 27th April, 1989, while he was going from his house to that of his brother Bati Khan, he was way laid by accused, Shahu accused prompted the others to kill the complainant for the insult he has brought to them. It is alleged that Amir accused who was armed with a 12 bore gun fired hitting at the neck. The complainant who fell after receiving this injury. The P.Ws reached spot and intervened thereafter complainant was removed to hospital. This is nut shell case of the prosecution as contained in the F.I.R.
2. The petitioner along with Amir moved for grant of bail after arrest. The same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide order dated 15th, June, 1989. Hence this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no role has been assigned to the petitioner in the F.I.R. It is added that the police has declared the petitioner innocent and put him in column 2 of the challan submitted in the trial Curt. It is added that Shahu, who was shown to be present armed with a rifle alike petitioner has been granted bail.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the state has argued that petitioner cannot escape vicarious liability. He was very much part of the unlawful assembly therefore, not entitled to bail. It is added that he was armed with a rifle. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted position that petitioner has not been assigned any active role in the occurrence. Coupled with the facts that the petitioner has been declared innocent by the investigation agency. It is true that the petitioner is shown to be armed with rifle but the same has not been recovered. All these facts make the case against petitioner a case of further inquiry. The result is that I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S.A./M‑1627/L Bail allowed.