Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 1987 PCRLJ 2025
Court / Jurisdiction: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Parties: MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs STATE
This judicial decision was delivered by the LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE. The matter involves proceedings between MUHAMMAD SARWAR and STATE, officially reported as 1987 PCRLJ 2025. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
1987 P Cr
1987 P Cr. L J 2025
[Lahore]
Before Ijaz Nisar, J
MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 87/B of 1987, decided on 7th March, 1987.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302,307, 148 &149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused attributed fatal injury to deceased‑‑Cross‑case registered‑ Accused in cross‑case already on bail‑ ‑Co‑accused also on bail‑ Challans in both cases submitted in Court‑‑Case being that of further inquiry as to which party was aggressor bail was allowed.
Muhammad Awais Shahid for Petitioner.
Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.
Date of hearing: 4th March, 1987.
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Sarwar petitioner alongwith five others stands charged for the murder of Mst. Chandar Bibi and for causing injuries to Mst. Rashida, Moti and Kheeloo Khan on 27‑7‑1986 with a hatchet and sticks. The occurrence was because of a dispute over the payment of labour charges for planting paddy.
2. During the occurrence, the petitioner was allegedly armed with a hatchet, while his co‑accused carried sticks. He is attributed fatal injury with a hatchet to Mst. Chandar Bibi deceased.
3. Bail is urged on the grounds that the complainant party has suppressed the true facts and as a matter of fact, it was guilty of aggression in that Bhure Khan, father of the petitioner: was inured by the complainant party resulting in six injuries to him, of which one was grievous. A cross case under section 325, P.P.C. has also been registered against them and all the accused are on bail. All the co‑accused of the petitioner are also said to be on bail. It is further stated that there is a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. According to the eye‑witnesses, Muhammad Sarwar petitioner has caused injury to the deceased with a hatchet, but no sharp‑edged weapon injury was found on her person and on the other hand, a lacerated wound was found on her person. It is also stated that there was no repetition of blows by him. The injuries suffered by Bhure Khan have not been explained at all by they prosecution in the F.I.R.
4. The Investigating Officer states that challans of both the cases have been filed in the Court. In the circumstances narrated above, it appears to be a case of further inquiry as to which party was guilty of aggression. Accordingly, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty‑five thousand) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to they satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Lahore.
S.A./M‑206/L Bail granted.