Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 872/B of 1974, decided on 19th April 1974.

-----S. 498‑Bail‑Contention that for mere fact that accused are involved or convicted in some other cases concession of bail should not be refused‑Held, had no force‑Earlier conductor convictions‑Relevant and can be considered at time of bail --Accused previous convicts and involved in criminal cases‑Bail refused in circumstances of case.

Muhammad Iqbal v. State P L D 1963 Lah. 279 rel.

Sardar Ataullah for Petitioner.

Miss Gulshan Ara Alam for the State.

This is an application by Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ashraf for the grant of bail. They are accused alongwith three others of offences under sections 148, 307/452/149, P. P. C. They are said to have armed themselves with different weapons and attacked and injured Muhammad Riaz complainant. Out of the assailants Abdul Majid was armed with a revolver. Muhammad Siddiq was armed with a danda. Muhammad Hussain co‑accused and Muhammad Iqbal petitioner No. 1 were armed with sotis while Muhammad Ashraf is not said to have been armed with anything.

2. The facts are that Muhammad Riaz was going towards his house when suddenly a car came and stopped near him and five accused came out of the same and then Abdul Majid fired at him but missed. Muhammad Riaz ran to his house which was nearby but all the accused chased him upto his house and all of them caught him and beat him up with sticks and also gave him kicks and fist blows. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum granted bail to the main accused by his order dated 13‑3‑1974 but declined to grant bail to the present petitioners as Muhammad Iqbal petitioner was involved in some other cases, while Muhammad Ashraf petitioner was a previous convict. In 1963 Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No. 2 had been sentenced to four years' R. I. for an offence under section 304, P. P. C. and in 1965 he had been convicted and sentenced for various other offences e. g. he was convicted and sentenced to 7 years' R. I. under section 304, P. P. C. In the same year he was convicted for offences under section 307/326, P. P. C. Again the same year he was sentenced to 1 years' R. I. under the Arms Ordinance.

3. Both Muhammad lqbal and Muhammad Ashraf are also being proceeded against under section 107, Cr. P. C. in two cases. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the mere fact that the petitioners had been involved or convicted in other cases does not mean that they should not be granted bail in the present case because, he argued, each case must be judged on its own merits.

I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention. While it is true that each case must be considered on its own merits, but the earlier conduct or convictions of the petitioners are also relevant and can be con sidered while determining the question of entitlement to grant of bail. As observed by Mr. Justice Manzur Qadir, C. J. (as he then was), in Muhammad Iqbal v. State (P L D 1963 Lah. 279) one of the considerations to be kept in mind while granting bail is that as to whether the accused person who is likely to commit other offences while on bail should be let loose on the society. I feel that the antecedents of the two petitioners, specially that those of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner, are such that it would disentitle them to the concession of grant of bail for, it is likely that they may commit further offences. I feel that their bail was rightly refused by the learned Sessions Judge and I see no ground for interference. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition 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.