PCRLJ 1993

1993 P Cr (PLP)

DIN MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
1992-October-19
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1993 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties DIN MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 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 1993 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (DIN MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, the learned Advocate for the applicants, has contended that admittedly there are fire-arm injuries on both sides and enmity between the parties on account of an earlier murder of one Ghulam Jan, uncle of complainant Muhammad Aslam in F.I.R. No.109/92 is also spelt out. Complainant Muhammad Aslam was armed with revolver which, according to him fell on the ground when he-and others were attacked. In the counter-case of F.I.R. No.110/92, complainant Rab Nawaz is caused fire-arm injuries. In the circumstances, it would be determined at the trial as to which party was aggressor. As in the counter-case of F.I.R. 110/92, all the accused are granted pre-arrest bail, the applicants herein would also be entitled to bail, pending their trial. The learned Advocate has referred (i) Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali and another 1972 S .C M R 685, (ii) Wakeel Hussain v. The State 1976 S C M R 159, (iii) Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmed and 3 others 1976 S C M R 391, (iv) Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Siddique and another 1987 S C M R 861, (v) Rehmat Ali v. Hussain and others 1978 S C M R 195 in support of his contention. He has also placed on record photostat copies of orders in Criminal Bail Applications Nos.889 of 1974, 709 of 1974, 874 of 1974, 856 of 1974 and 847 of 1974 of this Court, where bail in similar circumstances was granted.
  • Mr. Azizur Rehman Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for the State; has conceded to the grant of bail, in view of the fact that there are counter versions of the same incident and the accused in F.I.R.110/92 are on bail, although complainant Rab Nawaz was given injuries with pistol.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/324/403/34

Bail, grant of-- Counter-versions of the same incident

Accused in the counter-case were on bail

Both the parties had suppressed the factum of injuries caused to other side and it could not be said as to which party was the aggressor

Case of accused, therefore, required further enquiry and they were admitted to bail accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

Azizullah K. Shaikh for Applicants. Azizur Rehman Shaikh for the State. Applicants Din Muhammad and Muhammad Idrees, who are accused of Crime No.109 of 1992, registered at Police Station Baghdadi under section 302/324/403/34, P.P.C. (Q&D) Ordinance, seek bail. On 26-9-1992, their bail application is rejected by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, South Karachi. Facts, briefly stated, are that on 8-5-1992 complainant Muhammad Aslam Niazi lodged F.I.R. and stated that on 7-5-1992, at 7-00 p.m., he alongwith Dr. Ismail, Rustam Khan, Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Akbar, left for going to offer Maghrib prayers. While they were passing by the side of Muhammad Khan alias Jungli's building applicant Idrees started abusing through a window and said that as his uncle Mir Jan was murdered, they would not be spared. Two more persons were standing with Idrees who were not identified. They all fired at complainant party, of whom, Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Akbar received injuries and fell down. The 3 accused then came out from the building and gave Danda and Belcha blows to complainant on his head and right arm. Complainant further stated that his licensed revolver fell down. Injured were taken to Civil Hospital, where Muhammad Khan succumbed to his injuries. Counter-F.I.R. of the same incident being 110/92 was also lodged by one Rab Nawaz at 03-15 hours on 8-5-1992, in which he stated that at 7-00 p.m. on 7-5-1992 he was in his house playing radio, when an unidentified person armed with a Danda came and restrained him from playing radio in loud tone. For that there was a scuffle and the unidentified person gave Danda blow on his head. The culprit went to his house and after a while he came with 6/7 unidentified persons, of whom 4 were armed with pistols. They fired at complainant who sustained injuries on his legs. It is also in the F.I.R. that during the firing, one of the culprits also got injured and fell down. The F.I.R. was registered under sections 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. read with section 324 of Q&D Ordinance. Five persons accused of Crime No.110/92, namely, Dr. Muhammad Ismail, Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Aslam, Sharifuddin and Muhammad Siddique, surrendered themselves before the Sessions Judge, Karachi-South and were granted interim pre-arrest bail on 8-6-1992, which was confirmed on 4-7-1992. Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, the learned Advocate for the applicants, has contended that admittedly there are fire-arm injuries on both sides and enmity between the parties on account of an earlier murder of one Ghulam Jan, uncle of complainant Muhammad Aslam in F.I.R. No.109/92 is also spelt out. Complainant Muhammad Aslam was armed with revolver which, according to him fell on the ground when he-and others were attacked. In the counter-case of F.I.R. No.110/92, complainant Rab Nawaz is caused fire-arm injuries. In the circumstances, it would be determined at the trial as to which party was aggressor. As in the counter-case of F.I.R. 110/92, all the accused are granted pre-arrest bail, the applicants herein would also be entitled to bail, pending their trial. The learned Advocate has referred (i) Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali and another 1972 S .C M R 685, (ii) Wakeel Hussain v. The State 1976 S C M R 159, (iii) Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmed and 3 others 1976 S C M R 391, (iv) Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Siddique and another 1987 S C M R 861, (v) Rehmat Ali v. Hussain and others 1978 S C M R 195 in support of his contention. He has also placed on record photostat copies of orders in Criminal Bail Applications Nos.889 of 1974, 709 of 1974, 874 of 1974, 856 of 1974 and 847 of 1974 of this Court, where bail in similar circumstances was granted. Mr. Azizur Rehman Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for the State; has conceded to the grant of bail, in view of the fact that there are counter versions of the same incident and the accused in F.I.R.110/92 are on bail, although complainant Rab Nawaz was given injuries with pistol. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel and gone through both the F.I.Rs., the orders of trial Court and the case-law referred: The complainant Muhammad Aslam in F.I.R. No.109/92 was admittedly armed with a revolver and Rab Nawaz who is complainant has sustained injuries on his legs. It cannot be said at this stage, as to which party was the aggressor. Both the parties have suppressed the factum of injuries on each side. In view of the case-law referred to above, the case of applicants would require further enquiry, making them entitled to bail. The applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. one lac each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./D-112/K Bail allowed.