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 Bail Application No.1231 of 1986, decided on 11th August,
1986.
‑‑‑S. 498‑--Penal Code (XLV of‑1860), 5.302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Vicarious liability‑‑Deceased forbidding accused from selling heroin‑‑Accused extending threats left place Accused returning with co‑accused, taught hold of deceased and co‑accused causing injuries to deceased‑‑Accused, held, had motive, was vicariously liable for offence and was not entitled to bail in circumstances.
Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Applicant.
A.A. Muhammadally, A . A .‑G . for the State.
It is alleged that the applicant was selling heroin in front of the house of the complainant. The father of the complainant stopped, him from doing this. The applicant was annoyed over it and said that the would be coming back just now. At about 9‑30 p.m. the applicant alongwith his companion Rafiq came to the house of the complainant and began to fight with the father of the complainant. The applicant caught hold of father. The complainant separated Mukhtar and in the meantime co‑accused Rafiq gave three knife blows which struck on the left side of chest causing injuries.
The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that no overt act is attributed to the present applicant. He was not armed with any weapon. He did not cause any injury to the deceased. He only caught hold the deceased but thereafter he was separated. This contention has no force. The accused was annoyed when the deceased forbad him. He went away from there giving him threats and returned back alongwith the co‑accused. He had a motive. The applicant caught hold the deceased. He is vicariously liable for the offence. He is not entitled to bail. The learned counsel has referred to the cases of 1 Fazal v . The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1023; Fateh Muhammad v. The State 197 PCr.LJ 1062 and Sher Afgan v. The State P L D 1986 Pesh. 107.
These cases were decided on their own merits. The, facts of the present case clearly indicate that the applicant is constructively liable for the offence. The application for bail is rejected.
S.A. Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer