Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 984/13 of 1972, decided on 26th May 1972.

---

---- S. 498-Bail granted by Magistrate only next day for reasons not known-Case having two conflicting versions, one by father of injured person and other by accused-Version of accused in counter case open to two opinions-Order of cancellation of bail by Sessions Judge, held, proper-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302.

Yusuf Ali Khan for Petitioner.

Shahid Hussain Kadri for the State

The petitioner is accused of an offence under section 302, Pakistan Penal code for having fired with a gun at Muhammad Akhtar. The report was lodged by Muhammad Afzal, the father of the injured person. The petitioner was arrested on 31st of December 1971, and was granted bail by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali, on 1st of January 1972. An application for cancellation of bail was moved before the learned Sessions Judge who cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner.

2. There are two versions in the case, one by the father of the injured person to the effect that the petitioner had fired at Muhammad Akhtar with a gun and the other is by the petitioner himself in which he said that Muhammad Akhtar had injured him with a chhurri and the gun held by the petitioner-went off accident ally causing injuries to Muhammad Akhtar including one on the testicles. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the story of the gun going off accidentally is open to two opinions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been on bail for four months and the learned Sessions Judge should not have interfered in .the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate. He further submits that the challan has been filed in Court but no evidence has been recorded. This circumstance is also pressed into service for grant of bail.

4. I find that the learned Magistrate granted bail to the petitioner on the very next day. I have not before me the order of the learned Magistrate. I do not know the reasons which persuaded him to grant bail to the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner remained on bail for four months and this would have been a circumstance in his favour if the merits of the case so warranted. The learned Sessions Judge has, however, found that the version put forward by the petitioner in the counter-case is open to two opinions.

5. On the allegations as ma a in the F. I. R. I do not think that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly exercised his discretion in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. This application is dismissed.

Application 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.