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. 193/B of 1975, decided on 10th February 1975.
‑‑ S. 498‑Co‑accused stabbing deceased with knife‑Possession of knife not within knowledge of accused‑Accused neither attacking deceased nor inflicting any injury upon first informant Eye‑witnesses not attributing any part to accused‑Bail granted in circumstances of case‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.
Ghulum Bari Saleemi for Petitioner.
Mrs. Zohra Aftab for the State.
Mohammad Anwar petitioner and Mushtaq accused Fare alleged to have murdered Arshad. The case against them is at the enquiry stage. Out of five witnesses, four have been examined. Mst. Hamida P. W. was carrying on with Javaid informant who had paid Rs. 6,OU0 to her through Arshad deceased. Muhammad Anwar accused is alleged to be another paramour of Hamida. He along with Mushtaq accused brought Hamida back from the house of the informant in his absence. The informant wanted to get his money back. Rs. 4,000 was paid to him. The dispute arose about the balance. Mushtaq cc‑accused is alleged to have pulled out a knife from his dub and attacked Arahad. Anwer petitioner was in possession of a whip which the informant caught hold of when he was about to use it.
2. It is contended that according to the allegation in the F. I. R., chef petitioner did not have the knowledge if his co‑accused was armed with a knife. He further contended that the petitioner did not attack the deceased not any injury was caused by him to the informant. It was also contender that the eye‑witnesses so far examined have not attributed any part to him towards the commission of the crime.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has contended that Anwar petitioner is husband of Mst. Hamida he would be aggrieved against the deceased and the inform ant. It is further contended that it is premature to weigh the evidence and to consider the application of section 34, P. P. C. at this stage. No doubt, the value of the evidence cannot be assessed at thi3 stage. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is borne out from the F. I. R. that the petitioner had no knowledge that his companion was carrying a knife. I, therefore, allow bail to the petitioner in the sum of g Rs. 10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committing Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer