1980 PLP 313 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 313 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 313 (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 1980 PLP 313 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 313 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 7th October, 1979.
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 20-6-1979 in Cr. Misc. No. 2133/8/79). -- S. 497-Bail-Accused petitioner clearly named in F. I. R. as being one of assailants of deceased although such report lodged with two days' delay-Direct implication of accused petitioner by complainant and challan submitted by Investigating Officer-Held, High Court could not arrive at conclusion that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that accused petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life-Refusal of bail by High Court justified in circumstances of case. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, C J.‑The petitioner along with two others, is facing prosecution for the murder of one Khushi Muhammad on the allegations that he, in furtherance of the common intention of all the three accused persons, inflicted a soti blow on the deceased, whereas his co‑accused Muhammad Bashir gave a hatchet blow on the head of the deceased, which caused his death. The petitioner's applications for bail have been dismissed by the Sessions Court and the High Court. Leave to appeal is sought on the grounds that there was a delay of two days in lodging the F. I. R. which has not been satisfactorily explained by the first informant ; and that during the course of re‑investigation of the incident by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, several persons had stated that the real culprits were some other persons, and one Nazir Ahmad had, in fact, asserted that in his presence the deceased was injured by a stone thrown by one Saeed Ahmad. The learned counsel contends that in these circumstances the High Court was in error in refusing bail, as this was clearly a case for further inquiry. We do not see any merit in these submissions for the reason that even though there has been delay in reporting the incident, the petitioner is clearly named in the F. I. R. as being one of the assailants of the deceased. The medical evidence showed that the fatal injury was inflicted by a hatchet, and, accordingly, the statement alleged to have been made by one Nazir Ahmad before the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the deceased was injured by a stone thrown by one Saeed Ahmad would hardly benefit the petitioner. 1n view of the direct implication of the petitioner by the complainant and the fact that a challan has been submitted against him by the Investigating Officer, it was not possible for the High Court to arrive at the conclusion that there were no unreasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. We consider, therefore, that the High Court was justified in refusing bail. The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.