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 Miscellaneous No. 2020 of 1968, decided on 21st June 1968.
S. 497-Bail- Court not to examine merits of prosecution case or plea of defence in finding whether reasonable grounds appear for believing that accused person has been guilty.
In dealing with the petition under section 497, Cr. P. C., the High Court is required to examine the material available in order to determine if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners were not guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life and therefore could be admitted to bail. Of course, the High Court is not to examine the merits of the prosecution case or the plea of defence in finding whether reasonable grounds appear for believing that the accused person has been guilty, as any expression of opinion about the merits of the case by the High Court may dispose of the case before the trial has started.
Muhammad Aslam etc. v. State P L D 1967 S C 539 ref.
,--------S. 497-Bail sought on ground of right of private defence-Claim for right not made in counter F. I. R.-Elaborate examination of plea at stage not warranted-Broad features of case showing that accused would not be entitled to claim right of private defence-Petition for bail dismissed.
Nazeer Ahmad Mahmood for Appellants.
Ch. Zamir Ahmad Khan for the State.
Malik Ahmad Nur and 17 other persons have filed this application for bail in a case under sections 302/307/149 and 148, P. P. C.
2. The aforesaid case arises out of F. I. R. No. 49, dated 28-9-1967, Police Station, Katha Saghral, District Sargodha. A summary of the F. I. R. is given in para. 1 of the petition.
3. The same day, Muhammad Nawaz petitioner lodged F.I.R. No. 50 at P. S. Katha Saghral, a copy of which is Annex. A' with this petition.
4. The grounds en which the petitioners claim bail are mentioned in paras. 3 (a) to 3 (j) in the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the peti tioners and Mr. Zamir Ahmad Khan, Advocate, appearing for the State.
6. In both cases the investigation by the police has been completed and challans have been put into Court.
7. In dealing with the petition under section 497, Cr. P. C. this Court is required to examine the material available in order to determine if there appear reasonable grounds for believing, that the petitioners were not guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life and therefore could be admitted A to bail. Of course, as explained in Muhammad Aslam etc. v. State (P L D 1967 S C 539), this Court is not to examine the merits of the prosecu tion case or the plea or defence in finding whether reasonable grounds appear for believing that the accused person has been guilty, as any expression of opinion about the merits of the easel by this Court may dispose of tote case before the trial has started. Accordingly I shall not deal with such grounds mentioned in the petition as involve determination of questions of fact and law, except to the extent, it is necessary to do so to dispose of this bail application.
8. The broad features of the transaction, as it emerges out of the two F. I. Rs. are as follows :-
(a) (i) A perusal of F. I. R. No. 49, lodged by Surkhroo, shows that Surkhroo, Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Nur were armed with guns and took part in the firing.
(ii) A perusal of F. I. R. No. 50, lodged by Muhammad Nawaz would show that Aitbar, Ahmad Nur, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Sharif were armed with guns and took part in the firing.
(b) (i) It is alleged in F. I. R. No. 49 that Khan Muhammad, Falak Sher and Muhammad Ali fired at Dost Muhammad, who as a result of the injuries died at the spot. Muhammad Nawaz fired at Ghulam Muhammad and injured him. Other accused persons took part in the indiscriminate firing that followed.
(ii) A perusal of F. I. R. No. 50 would show that Abbas was injured.
(c) (i) According to F. I. R. No. 49, the dispute arose out of the land belonging to Mst. Bivi, which at the time of occurrence, was being ploughed by Dost Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad.
(ii) According to F.I.R. No. 50, the dispute amongst other things, related to certain land belonging to Sher Muhammad, which previously used to be in possession of Surkhroo and which at tae time of occurrence was in the possession of Muhammad Nawaz and party, on the basis of a lease deed executed by Slier Muhammad.
(d) (i) According to Surkhroo's version, Dost Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad were peacefully in occupation of Mst. Bivi's land when the party accused in F. I. R. No. 49 started assault by opening fire at them.
(ii) According to Muhammad Nawaz's version, Surkhroo and party armed with fire-arms climbed on the dera of Aitbar and Ahmad Nur etc. and injured Abbas ; it is added that eventually Surkhroo and party retreated.
(e) The Sub-Inspector, who brought the record explained the situation. The impression left on the mind was that the land belonging to Mst. Bivi, the land belonging to Sher Muhammad, the dera of Surkhroo etc. and dera of Aitbar, Nur Ahmad etc., lie within a radius of about a furlong. Undisputedly, there was one transaction and each party has described it in the way it suited to that party.
9. Surkhroo and party have contended that Dost Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad were ploughing Mst. Bivi's land when the opposite-party opened the assault, with the result that Dost Muhammad died in Mst. Bivi's land. It is explained that the dead body for certain reasons was removed from that place. The Sub-Inspector actually collected blood-stained earth from a spot in Mst. Bivi's land. This in a way corroborates Surkhroo's version. The Sub-Inspector did not find any blood-stained spot inside the dera of the petitioners, which might indicate that the assault on the petitioners party was made inside their dera or that Abbas was injured inside that dera. On the material available, the impression left on the mind is that Dost Muhammad got injured and died in Mst. Bivi's land and not somewhere inside or close to the dera of the petitioners' party.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Surkhroo and party had assaulted Muhammad Nawaz and party in their deras, with the result that Muhammad Nawaz and party were within their right of private defence to cause injuries to Dost Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad of Surkhroo party. According to him, the police had accepted this version and on that account the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail. The broad features noticed above would show that Muhammad Nawaz and party would not be entitled to claim the exercise of the right of private defence. It is remarkable that no such claim was made in F.I.R. No. 50. In any case elaborate examination of the plea of the exercise of the right of private defence at this stage appears to be unwarranted.
11. In view of what has been stated above this petition has no force and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer