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. 3002 of 1968, decided on 2nd August 1968.
S. 498‑Bail Accused unmistakably named by eye‑witnesses and ascribed a specific role in offence‑Fact that accused remained on bail during commitment proceedings‑Does not by itself furnish any justifica tion to admit them to bail‑Application rejected.
, S. 498‑Bail‑Eye witnesses not assigning any role to accused in committing murder nor saying that they raised a lalkara or instigated other accused to kill deceased‑Accused admitted to bail.
Abdul Malik v. The State P L D 1968 S C 349 rel.
Malik Amjad Hussain for Petitioner.
S. M. Bashir, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
A case was registered against seven persons, namely, Sher Muhammad, Amir Muhammad, Jehan Khan, Ghaus Muhammad Gul Muhammad, Lal son of Allah Ditta and Lal son of Ghulam Muhammad, for the murder of Fateh Muhammad in Akbar Hotel on Katha Saghral Road near Khoshab at about sunset on the 14th of September 1966. The case was investigated and the police found that Jehan Khan, Ghaus Muhammad, Gill Muhammad, Lal son of Allah Ditta and Lal son of Ghulam Muhammad were innocent. They were shown in column No. 2 of the challan and were admitted to bail by the police. The challan was presented against Sher Muhammad and Amir Muhammad. Amir accused applied for bail to the High Court and by the order of this Court, dated the 25th of September 1967, he was admitted to bail.
2. The complainant applied to the Additional Sessions Judge Sargodha for the cancellation of the bail of Jehan Khan and four others, who were admitted to bail by the police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated the 13th of February 1968, rejected the application. The result was that except Sher Muhammad the rest of the accused remained on bail.
3. The learned committing Magistrate by his order dated the 1st of May 1968, committed the case to the Court of Session and he also ordered the arrest of the petitioners. The petitioners applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was rejected by him on the 4th of July 1968. They have now moved this application in the High Court.
4. Amir was admitted to bail by the High Court. Learned counsel contends that it was not competent for the learned Inquiry Magistrate to have cancelled his bail while committing him to the Court of Session. He relied on Noor Muhammad v. State (P L D 1964 Lah. 464). The contention of the learned counsel would have been formidable, but for the subsequent order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who took notice of a similar contention raised by him and specifically directed that it "does not assume importance in view of my refusing to grant bail to the petitioners on other considerations.
5. Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 5), Khan Muhammad (P. W. 7) and Sher Muhammad (P. W. 8) are the eye‑witnesses. They deposed that Amir and Jehan Khan caught hold of the deceased and Sher Muhammad fired at him with the result that he succumbed to the injuries. It is true that Jehan Khan and Amir were on bail during the commitment proceedings before the Inquiry Magistrate, but that by itself does not furnish any justification to admit them to bail when they are unmistakably named by the eye‑witnesses and have been ascribed a specific role. Their application is rejected.
6. The three witnesses mentioned above do not assign any role to Ghulam Muhammad, Ghaus Muhammad, Lal son of Allah Ditta and Lal son of Ghulam Muhammad. They even do not say that these accused raised a lalkara or instigated the other accused to kill Fateh Muhammad deceased. The bail is to be refused, as held in Abdul Malik v. The State (P L D 1968 S C 349) where reasonable grounds exist tending to connect the accused with the crime. It was further held that no dictum or judgment of the Supreme Court creates any hurdle in matters of bail. In the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. I admit Ghulam Muhammad, Ghaus Muhammad, Lal son of Allah Ditta and Lal son of Ghulam Muhammad to bail in the sum of five thousand rupees (Rs. 5,000.00) with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional District Magistrate, Sargodha.
7. Copy dasti on payment of usual charges, today.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer