1982 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AYUB-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 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 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AYUB-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Petitioner not causing any injury to deceased
No motive to attack deceased stated-Bail allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497
Petitioner not causing any injury to deceased
No motive to attack deceased stated-Bail allowed, in circumstances. This an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Ayub in a case under section 302/34/30.7 P. P. C., registered at P. S. Dijkot vide F. I. R. No. 58 dated 2nd May, 1981. The prosecution case is that the petitioner alongwith two others in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Muhammad Ashraf and simple injuries to Muhammad Sarwar on 2nd May, 1981 at about 2 p.m, in the area of Chak No.
263. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegations against him are that he was armed with a soti during the occurrence caused two simple injuries on the person of Muhammad Sarwar complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the circumstances of the case, the question of vicarious liability needs serious consideration.
3. As against this, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition. He contends that prima facie section 34, P. P. C. is attracted in the case of the petitioner and he is equally liable for the act of his co-accused. He further submits that the petitioner came along with his co-accused, shouted lalkara and thereafter participated in the commission of the crime.
4. After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased ; the petitioner bad no motive to attack the deceased who had come to the place of occurrence after the start of the incident. Be that as it may, the fact remains there that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased. Without entering into the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, 'the question of vicarious liability of the petitioner needs further inquiry. The petitioner is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Faisalabad. Bail granted.