1996 PLP 1023 (SCMR)
GHULAM NABI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1023 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1023 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1023 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1023 (SCMR) (GHULAM NABI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mujeebur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1994.
- Mujeebur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 16‑1‑1994 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur in Crl. Bail Application No. 5 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Occurrence having taken place in the house of the complainant, inmates of the house were the most natural witnesses of the occurrence‑‑‑Accused was the only person having motive to do away with the deceased and prima facie principle of vicarious liability was attracted‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.
Ghulam Nabi petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court dated 16-1-1994 whereby his petition for bail in a murder case was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that four years prior to the occurrence Feroze complainant married his daughter Mst. Sharifan with the petitioner and she started living in his house at Shahdad Kot. Sometime prior to the occurrence the complainant visited her in the house of the petitioner and she complained that she was being maltreated by the petitioner. She was lying ill and had marks of kick and fist blows on her body. The petitioner told the complainant to take her away for treatment and he took her to his house. A few days later the petitioner went to the house of the complainant to take back his wife on which the complainant asked him to furnish some security for good behaviour over which he got annoyed and retorted that his daughter would be no more in this world, therefore, no need for surety would arise.
3. On the night between 1/2-8-1993 at 1-00 a.m. the complainant, his wife Mst. Fatima, Mst. Sharifan deceased, Muhammad Panah and Rato P.Ws were sleeping in the house when co-accused Ghulam Sarwar armed with a pistol, Imam Bakhsh armed with a gun and the petitioner armed with hatchet trespassed into the house and on being asked by the complainant as to why they had come there the accused armed with fire-arms fired at Mst. Sharifan resulting in her instantaneous death. The petitioner is alleged to have advanced threats that whosoever came near would be done away with.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no injury to the deceased has been attributed to the petitioner, therefore, his case is of further inquiry and he is entitled to the concession of the bail.
5. After considering the above submission in the light of material available on the record we do not find it a fit case for interference with the discretionary order of the High Court. The occurrence took place in the house of the complainant, therefore, the inmates of the house are the most natural witnesses of the occurrence and the petitioner is the only person having motive to do away with the deceased. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly observed that prima facie the principle of vicarious liability was attracted. In the circumstances no ground for the interference with the impugned order is made out. The petition is dismissed. N. H. Q./G-501/S Leave refused.