1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 22nd August 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused though armed with fire‑arms, admittedly did not cause any injury to deceased‑‑Only allegation against accused was of ineffective firing‑‑Case being that of further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail. Irshad v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 982; Rahmat Ali v. The State 1987 P Cr. 'L J 1018; Zafarullah Khan v. The State P L D 1986 Lah. 216; Muhammad Razzaq and 3 others v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 1105; Safdar Hussain and another v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 1117; Abdul Majid v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1568 and Muhammad Anwar Khan and 2 others v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 1305 ref. Miss Imrana Perveen for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioners. Miss Imrana Perveen for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd August 1988. Muhammad Sharif and Ghulam Farid both sons of Fazil have moved this petition for bail after arrest under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. in the case registered against them under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Haveli vide F.I.R. No. 86/69 dated 4‑4‑1988.
2. The principal contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioners, although armed with fire‑arms, did not cause any injury to the deceased. The only allegation against them is of ineffective firing. According to FIR Mumtaz alias Taj Muhammad Sharif, Ghulam Farid sons of Fazil, Bashir Ahmad son of Ahmad and other 6/7 villagers who were also armed with guns and rifles while firing came towards village Akhtarabad. In response to the firing of the above‑referred accused from village Akhtarabad Amir son of Nadar and Sattar s on of Jehangir were also firing towards Mumtaz etc. In the meantime, Sardara, personal servant of the complainant, reached the village towards north at a distance of 1‑1/2 Acres. He was hit by a bullet alleged to have been fired by Amir's party. On the receipt of the injury he fell down on the ground and died at the spot. Learned counsel placed reliance on Irshad v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 982, Rahmat Ali v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 1018, Zafarullah Khan v. The State P L D 1986 Lah. 216, Muhammad Razzaq and 3 others v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 1105, Safdar Hussain and another v. The state 1985 PCr.LJ 1117, Abdul Majid v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1568, Muhammad Anwar Khan and 2 others v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 1305. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail.
3. It is an admitted position that the petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased. In this view this is a case of further enquiry. Therefore, the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.80,000 (Rupees eighty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C . , Okara. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the two petitioners within 6 months time. H.B.T./M‑946/L Bail granted.