Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NASAR VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND ANOTHER
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Karam Elahi Chauhan Title: MUHAMMAD NASAR vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND ANOTHER Case No.:Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 293 of 1979 Cr. Misc. No.
1922-B of 1979 Date of Judgment:1981-06-08 Reported As: 1981 SCMR 894 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Muhammad Arshad was granted bail in a case registered against him and three others as per F. I. R. No. 132 dated 21-3-1979 under section 302/307/34, P. P. C. For having murdered Aftab alias Bila and for having caused injuries to Muhammad Asghar P. W. According to the prosecution there were involved four accused in this case, namely Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Ajmal, Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Arshad (present respondent). The first three were armed with a chhuri each whereas respondent Muhammad Arshad was empty- handed and the sole allegation against him was that he kept holding the deceased so as to facilitate the infliction of injuries on him by ethers. Muhammad Arshad applied for bail which was granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 24-5-1979. 2. The petitioner (complainant) filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1922-B /1979 for, cancellation of bail of Muhammad Arshad but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on' 10-6-1979. 3. The petitioner/complainant has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same and has repeated the same-prayer which he made in the High Court viz. That the bail of the respondent should be cancelled. 4.Learned counsel argued that Muhammad Arshad respondent would be vicariously liable for an offence under section 302/34, P. P. C. For havin held the deceased in a japha and for having facilitated the infliction of blows on him by the other accused. The two Courts below attended to this aspect but on the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the present case, in the exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction were not prepared to refuse the privilege of bail to the aforesaid
---
## Page 2
accused. We have gone through the location of injuries on the person of the deceased and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case vis-a-vis the respondent all that we need observe is that in the circumstances .The High Court committed neither any factual nor any legal error and nor violated any principle of law applicable to criminal cases of this type in releasing the respondent on bail. 5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.