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

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus THE STATE


If the bail was left unchecked, the accused would be charged with a significant offense under Section 149, the Criminal Procedure 1860, as set forth in the first-time information report guaranteed under section 497 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860).

1985 P Cr. L J 1435

[Lahore]

Before Aslam Riaz Hussain, J

MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 276IB of 1974, decided on 4th April, 1974.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 148/302/307/149‑‑bail‑ Allegations made in first information report if left unrebutted, accused would be vicariously liable for main offence by virtue of S. 149, Penal Code, 1860‑‑Bail refused.

Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram for Petitioner.

Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for the Complainant.

Khuda Dad Barki for the State.

ORDER

Muhammad Sharif son of Khair Muhammad has 7applied for bail under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. He is accused alongwith four others of offences under sections 148 and 302/307/149, P.P.C.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that Muhammad Akbar, Sultan Akbar and Muhammad Sharif (petitioner) armed with guns while Fateh Khan and ‑Muhammad Khan co‑accused armed with hatchets attacked Maula Bakhsh deceased. According to the F.I.R. Muhammad Akbar accused raised a Lalkara that they would not allow the deceased to go alive. Muhammad Akbar also fired a shot which hit the deceased at his back and made an exit through the abdomer Sultan Akbar co‑accused fired a second shot at Maula Bakhah (deceased) but it did not hit him as he had fallen down, and instead hit Abdur Rehman P.W. who was injured. Muhammad Sharif petitioner fired an ineffective shot at the deceased. Fateh Khan and Muhammad Khan co‑accused tried to sever his head but it was prevented by the persons present nearby.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since no one had been hurt by the shot fired by the petitioner as such he is entitled to bail.

I am afraid I cannot agree with this proposition. If the allegations in the F.I.R. are left unrebutted, he would be vicariously liable for the main offence by virtue of section 149, P.P.C. The application is therefore dismissed.

M. Y. H. Bail refused.

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
power of attorney advocate Chak Jamal 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.