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. 4414 of 1969, decided on 31st July 1969.
S. 498-Bail before arrest-Accused fearing imminent apprehension by police for allegedly injuring one person of complainant's party with rifle shots-Medical report apparently in conflict with prosecution version respecting nature of arms used during alleged firing-Tentative bail in case of arrest granted.
Crown v. Khushi Muhammad P L D 1953 F C 170; Sadiq Ali v. The State P L D 1966 S C 589 and Hadayat Ullah Khan v. The Crown P L D 1949 Lah. 21 ref.
Ch. Khalid Mahmood for Petitioners.
Major Waheed-ud-Din Virk for the State.
Two cross-cases were reg1stered in respect of the same occur rence in which members of both sides were injured. The Investigating Officer states that the case is still pending investi gation and the Police has not been able to finally decide as to which party is the aggressor and which is the aggrieved.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the confirmation of the interim bail already allowed to the peti tioner on the 25th of July 1969, on the ground that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners were either placed under restraint or had imminent apprehension of arrest. Reliance is placed in this regard on Crown v. Khushi Muhammad (PLD1953 F C 170), and Sadiq Ali v. The State (PLD 1966 S C 589), in which Hadayat Ullah Khan v. The Crown (P L D 1949 Lah. 21), a Full Bench authority, was cited with approval.
3. On the contrary the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that out of eight accused only three petitioners have approached this Court for bail before arrest for the reason that they had allegedly fired rifle shots at Sher Khan causing him injuries and their apprehension by the Police was imminent.
4. A perusal of the Medico-legal Report showing pellet shots injuries on the person of Sher Khan prima facie, belies this part of the allegation.
5. While being clearly of the view that bail should be allowed to the petitioners on account of the apparent conflict between the medical evidence and the version given by the complainant as also appreciating the force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State, instead of confirming the interim bail, I would rather direct that the petitioners if arrested shall be allowed bail on furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 (five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. D. M., Mianwali.
Petition accepted.
Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer