1986 PLP 1810 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD USMAN‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1810 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD USMAN‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1810 (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 1986 PLP 1810 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1810 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD USMAN‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.307/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Vicarious liability‑‑Accused having motive against complainant‑ ‑Co‑accused accompanying accused, firing indiscriminately on complainant‑‑Accused arrested at spot by Eagle Squad‑‑Prima facie, vacarious liability for offence, held, could be attributed to accused ho was found not entitled to bail in circumstances. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Applicant. A.A. Muhammadally, A.A.‑G, for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.307/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Vicarious liability‑‑Accused having motive against complainant‑ ‑Co‑accused accompanying accused, firing indiscriminately on complainant‑‑Accused arrested at spot by Eagle Squad‑‑Prima facie, vacarious liability for offence, held, could be attributed to accused ho was found not entitled to bail in circumstances. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Applicant. A.A. Muhammadally, A.A.‑G, for the State. The applicant is facing trial under section 307/34, P.P.C. wherein it has been alleged that on 21‑7 1986 the complainant had seen the present applicant selling the ‑ heroin in front of his house and the complainant asked him not to' do so but the applicant abused th<: complainant and at about 7‑30 p.m. he alongwith three persons came there and started firing at the complainant. The complainant jumped over from the place and saved his life. At that time a vehicle of Eagle Squad also appeared at the scene and they arrested the present applicant, and Fazal Qadir and the remaining two persons ran away from the; place of incident. The learned counsel for the: applicant has‑slated that the applicant was not selling the heroin and no case of that nature has been registered against him. He has further stated that at the time when the applicant was apprehended, no arm was recovered by the police from the applicant and the fire‑arm was recovered from co‑accused Fazal Qadir. In these circumstances the applicant is entitled to bail. In fact the applicant is the aggrieved person. He was prevented; by the complainant from selling the heroin. He had a motive in bringing; the co‑accused to the place of incident. The co‑accused made, indiscriminate firing on the complainant with fire‑arm. In these circumstances, prima facie, the vicarcious liability for the offence is' attributed to the present applicant. He is not entitled to bail. The; application is rejected. S.A. Application dismisses.