Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2538 of 1967, decided on 22nd February 1968.

S. 497 (5)‑Cancella tion of bail‑‑‑Parsons accused of offences under Ss. 148, 307 & 302 read with S. 149, P. P. C. granted bail by Sessions Judge on ground that respondent had "a very arguable case"‑Consideration, held, not very clear‑Bail, nevertheless, not cancelled inasmuch as only simple injuries were caused to all victims except one and even in his case it was not certain at the stage whether injury described as "grievous" by doctor really fell within definition of S. 320, P. P. C.

Ss. 496 & 497-- Bail‑Use of firearm in commission of crime ‑Bail, ordinarily, not granted in such case.

K. Bashir Pervez for Petitioner.

Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din for Respondents.

S. M. Bashir, A. A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 19th February 1968.

This is a petition under section 497(5), Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail of the respondents, who are accused in a case under sections 148, 307 and 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. The petitioner is Ghulam Mohy‑ud‑Din complainant. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, who appeared for the State, submitted that the State was not interested in the cancellation of bail.

2. There were two incidents and both the parties resorted to the use of firearms. In the first incident in which the respondents are alleged to have fired with guns a number of persons were injured. The medico‑legal reports indicate that the injuries sustained by witnesses other than Muhammad Sharif were simple. Counsel for the respondents contended that the injury on the person of Muhammad Sharif was inaccurately described bar the doctor as grievous hurt' and in this connection reference was made to the definition of brievou3 hurt' in section 320, P. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, granted bail on the ground that the respondents had 'a very arguable case'. What is Implied by the use of this phrase by the learned Judge is not clear but if the learned Judge proceeded to grant bail considering that the respondents acted in defence of persons or property to ought to have set it out clearly in his order. The question of self‑defence could not be gone into at the stage which the respondents were granted bail, for, it involved the appreciation of evidence which has still not been recorded. The consideration which prevailed with the learned Judge in granting bail to the respondents, is not clear. He failed to consider if the offence committed fell under any of the two limbs of section 307, P. P. C. Ordinarily, bail is not the rule in cases where the commission of crime is attended by the use of firearms but the circumstance which have weighed with this Court in declining to revise the orders is that the injuries caused to the victims were all simple except to Muhammad Sharif and even is his case it cannot be pronounced with certainty at this stage that the injury described as grievous curt' by the doctor really fell within the definition in section 320, P. P.C.

3. In the second incident one of the confederates of the respondents, named, Muhammad Boota fired with a pistol at Mst. Hamida, who interceded on behalf of the opposite‑party. She was mortally wounded and died. The respondents other than Muhammad Boota were assigned a minor role. The application for cancellation of bail of the respondents is dismissed. They will continue on bail till such time as a competent Court frames a charge of non‑bailable offence against them. It will, in that event, be open to the complainant to apply to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail of the respondents. Needless to add that Muhammad Boota who fired the fatal shot, was not released on bail.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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