Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1631/B of 1973, decided on 7th June 1973.

‑‑ S. 497(.4)‑Bail, cancellation of‑Accused coming empty handed neither attacking nor causing; injuries to any one and only raising of lalkara attributed to him‑Bail allowed by Sessions Judge not interfered with‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/149.

Hayat v. Ata Muhammad and others 1970 P Cr. L J 1034 and Muhammad Yaqub v. Stare 1971 P Cr. L 1 106 rel.

Ch. Nazir Ahmad Cheema for Petitioner. 1

Ch. A. Waheed Salim for Respondent No. 2.

Muhammad Akhtar for the State.

This is an application by Shah Nawaz son of Murad Hussain under section 497(5), Cr. P. C. for the cancellation of bail granted to Ghulam Akbar respondent No. 2.

2. According to the prosecution story Ghulam Akbar alongwith six others is alleged to have attacked Ghulam Murtaza, Muhammad yar and Khushi Muhammad. Eli of them were injured. Ghulam Murtaza (deceased) succumbed to his injuries. A case under section 302/307/149, P. P. C. was therefore, registered against them. As mentioned in the F. I. R. the six co‑accused were armed while Ghulam Akbar respondent No. 2 was empty‑handed. He is not said to have caused any injury to any one and the only allegation against him is that he raised a lalkara. In view of the above‑mentioned facts the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang granted him bail vide his order dated 2nd February, 1973. Shah Nawaz, the brother of the deceased has filed the present application for cancellation of bail.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang granting bail to Ghulam Akbar respondent. I see no flaw in his reasoning and hence no ground for interferring with his order Ghulam Akbar respondent is said to have come empty‑handed. He is not said to have a attacked or caused injuries to any one and it is his co‑accused who are A alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased and tree two P. Ws. The observations of the Supreme Court in Hayat v. Ata Muhammad and others (1970 P Cr. L J 1034) are relevant. In chat case the only allegation made against the accused was that he had raised a lalkara before his co‑accused attacked the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala granted him bail. The com plainant party applied for cancellation of bail to the High Court but the High Court refused to interfere the complainant thereupon filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the tame holding that the High Court had rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to cancel the bail. In Muhammad Yaqub v. State (1971 P Cr. L J 106) the Lahore High Court took a similar view in a case where the only part ascribed in the F. I. R. to the accused/respondent was that he raised a lalkara. The High Court refused to cancel his ball on the ground that although he was armed with a chhuri, yet he did not use the same and merely raised a lalkara.

4. In view of the above discussion, the petition is rejected.

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.