Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2223‑B 1981, decided on 29th August, 1981.
‑‑ S. 497/498 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/379/148/ 149‑Bail‑‑Petitioners not causing any injury to victim and ques tion of their vicarious liability requiring further inquiry in peculiar circumstances of case‑Bail granted.
Muhammad Ismail Qureshi assisted by Sardar Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Shah Nawaz Khan for the State.
Date of hearing : 29th August, 1981.
This is an application for bail on behalf 'of Rafiq. Shah, Mushtaq Shah, Ghulam Fartd Shah, Manzoor Shah and Moosan Shah petitioners, in a case under section 307/326/379/148/149, P. P. C. registered at Police Station Pacca Laran vide F. I. R. No. 167/80.
The allegations against the petitioners are that they alongwith five others in furtherance of their common object made murderous assault upon Ghaus Bakhsh and chopped off his various organs.
So far as petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 are concerned they did not cause any injury to the victim. The allegations against petitioner No. 1 is that after the occurrence he removed the golden rings from the person of the victim. As regards petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned the allegations are that they caught hold of the victim at the time of the occurrence. With regard to petitioner No. 5 Moosan Shah, it is alleged that he caused the grievous injuries.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, does not press for the bail of Moosan Shah petitioner No. 5. The petition qua him is dismissed as having not been pressed. It would, however, be open to him to repeat the application, if so advised.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that so far petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, the question of vicarious liability needs further inquiry. He submits that the co‑accused, namely Qutab, Nawaz and Nazar Hussain have accepted the liability of the crime.
4. As against this learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes this petition. He submits that it is a case of serious nature and that all the petitioners had taken active part in the commission of the crime.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that be that as it may, the fact remains there that petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 did not cause any injury to the victim and the question of their vicarious liability in the peculiar circumstances of the case needs further inquiry. They are accordingly admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (rupees twentyf thousand) with one surety, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of, A. C. Rahimyar Khan.
Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer