Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1211/B of 1972, decided on 6th June 1972.

----S. 498-Bail-Previous litigation between accused and first informant as well as one prosecu tion witness---Casts doubt on credentials of such witness-Such fact can be taken notice of while considering question of bail Interim bail confirmed.

M. Yasin Wattoo for Petitioner.

Hamid Farooq for the State.

Fateh Khan petitioner is accused of offences under section 307/325/34, P. P. C., along with three other persons namely, Muhammad Akram, Umar Hayat and Karam Ali. Risaldar Muhammad Zahid lodged the F. 1. R. He had not seen the occurrence himself but had rushed to the spot on hearing the noise coming from the house of Ghulam Hussain, the injured witness. On reaching there he found that Ghulam Hussain was lying injured on a cot and Ahmad Hussain (brother of Ghulam Hussain, the injured witness), Muhammad Aslam (the nephew of Risaldar Muhammad Zahid) and Ghulam Hussain son of Ghulam Muhammad were present near the cot. On inquiry they informed Risaldar Muhammad Zahid that Fateh Khan etc. had come armed with lathis and beaten Ghulam Hussain.

The motive for the occurrence is stated to be that about 10/12 days prior to the occurrence Ghulam Hussain, the injured P. W. had told Muhammad Akram co-accused, who is a vagabond, not to pass through the former's street. This resulted in an alterca tion and Ghulam Hussain beat up Muhammad Akram. The later nursed a grudge and he along with his relatives; including the petitioner, attacked Ghulam Hussain P. W. while he was sleeping on the roof of his house.

2. It is urged on behalf of Fateh Khan petitioner that the petitioner is not related to Muhammad Akram and did not, therefore, have any motive to join him in the attack and secondly, that Fateh Khan petitioner had been falsely involved because he had been pursuing a case under section 307;134, P. P. C. against Muhammad Aslam P. W. Moreover there was previous litigation between him and the first informant. It was urged that Fateh Khan petitioner was therefore entitled to the grant of bail.

The learned State Counsel opposed the bail application. He was however not in a position to deny the assertion that there was previous litigation between the parties as mentioned above.

3. I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the parties. 1 am of the view that the fact that there is a previous litigation between the petitioner and the first informant as well as Muhammad Aslam P. W., goes in petitioner"s favour and casts a doubt on the credentials of the said witnesses, who may have considered the incident an appropriate occasion to involve the petitioner falsely. This is factor which can be taken notice of while considering the question of grant of bail to the petitioner. In support of this contention reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Manzoor v. The State (P L D 1972 S C 81), wherein it has been observed, inter alia, that while considering the question of grant of bail, the Court can examine the data available in the case and can also take into considera tion "the nature and the credentials of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to lead in the case, and all the other relevant circumstances surrounding the occurrence."

4. In the view of the above discussion I feel that thi4 is a pant of bail to ;Fateh Khan petitioner inasmuch as there are reasonable grounds for believing that he nay not be guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life and may have been involved in the case falsely. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed.

Bail confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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