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. 492/B of 1973, decided on 12th February 1973.
---S. 497‑Bail‑Contention that accused being a student of Intermediate Class, deserved to be dealt with leniently‑Held, of no force‑‑Law makes no difference on this question,
-----Intention‑Accused causing injury with lethal weapon on head-- Has no other intention but to kill‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34.
Ahmad and others v. The State P LD 1971 S C 720 ref.
‑‑ S. 497‑Bail‑Accused not causing any injury and also pleading alibi i.e. doing patwar course at a distance of 60/70 miles away‑ Bail granted to accused.
Amin v. The State P L D 1972 S C 277 rel.
Aitzaz Ahsan for Petitioners.
Sh. Riaz Ahmad for the State.
The petitioners are alleged to have entered the behak of the deceased on the night between 22/23‑9‑1972. Muhammad Iqbal was armed with gun, Muhammad Mushtaq with hatchet and Gulzar Ahmed with dagger. Muhammad Iqbal is alleged to have fired the gun which has not hit anybody. A contused wound on the head, causing fracture of the skull is attributed to Muhammad Mushtaq by wrong side of his hatchet. Gulzar Ahmad is alleged to have given injuries with dagger on the thigh and leg. The motive for the crime is said to be the marriage of Mst. Jannat with Yaqub, whom Mushtaq intended to marry.
2. It has been vehemently argued on the basis of Ahmad and others v. The State (PLD 1971 SC 720) that the head injury attributed to Mushtaq cannot burden him with an intention to kill. It is premature at this state to assess this. It was further argued that he is a student of Intermediate Class and, therefore, he should be leniently dealt with. Law cannot have any differentiation between a student and a non‑student on this question. However, the person who caused injury with lethal weapon‑like the hatchet on the head has no other intention but to kill. This observation of mine would not have any effect on the merits of the case, but this is my legal view. So far as Gulzar Ahmad is concerned he has used the dagger causing injuries, although not on the vital part of the body. But according to the medical report of the doctor death has occurred due to haemorrhage and loss of blood. The case of Muhammad Mustaq and Gulzar Ahmad cannot be considered for grant of bail at this stage and is rejected, Muhammad Iqbal has also pleaded alibi that he was doing patwar course at Lodhran, 60 or 70 miles away. Since he has not caused any injury to the deceased and has also pleaded alibi his case comes within the purview of Amin v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277). He shall be released on bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of rupees ten thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of R. M., Khanewal.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer