Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

ALI ASGHA versus THE STATE


Guaranteed Approval Section 497/498 Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Section 302 All of the distress factor suddenly disappeared from the battle of Guarantee was paid only by the accused, who was dead while the co-accused stabbed He was guaranteed due to an injury.

P L D 1985 Karachi 609

Before Munawar Ali Khan, J

ALI ASGHAR AND ANOTHER-Applicants

versus

THE STATE-Respondent

Criminal Bail Application No. 330 of 1985, decided on 10th March, 1985.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

-- S. 497/498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Bail- Fight flared up all of a sudden-Element of premeditation entirely missing---Only part played by accused was that they had held deceased while co-accused inflicted Chhuri injury to him-Bail granted.

Sarfraz Khan Tanoli for Applicants.

Hassan Akbar, A. A.-G. for the State.

ORDER

The two applicants Ali Asghar and Aslam alongwith co-accused Akram are facing trial for the murder of one Ameer Khan. As disclosed in the F. 1. R. quarrel broke out between the deceased and the accused over water-tap and thereupon the applicants seized the deceased while Akram stabbed him with chhuri.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since it was a case of sudden fight the accused would be liable for their individual acts. His further contention was that even otherwise the only role assigned to the applicants was that they had only seized the deceased. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on Anwar Khan v. Muhammad Yousuf etc. N L R 1979 Criminal 939, In that case too the applicants were alleged to have only caught hold of the deceased and the fatal blows with chhuri were attributed to other accused. The High Court refused to cancel the bail of the applicants and the Supreme Court in appeal declined to interfere.

Another authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mir Ali Khan and another v. The State and another Cr. P. S. L. A. No. 81-K-84 decided on 21 -2-1985. In this case also the Supreme Court in more or less similar circumstances allowed bail to the accused who had only caught hold of the deceased in the sudden fight.

In the instant case, no doubt, the fight had flared up all of sudden. The element of premeditation was entirely missing. The only part 'played by the applicants was that they had held the deceased while the co-accused inflicted Chhuri' injury to him. The above authorities support the applicants' case. The learned A.A.-G. has no objection to grant of bail to the applicants. Accordingly bail is allowed to the applicants in the sum of Rs. 20,000 each and P. R. of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

M. Y. H. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
registration advocate from Jhudo lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.