Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2480/13 of 1975, decided on 27th June 1975.

‑‑ S. 498‑Bail‑Injuries though attributed to other accused yet accused petitioner not alleged to have made any preparation before committing theft‑Petitioner's contention of being involved due to enmity appearing correct.‑Interim bail confirmed‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 382. [Bail].

M. Ismail Bhatti for Petitioner.

M. Rafiq Butt for the State.

This is an application by Irshad Hussain for grant of bail before arrest. He is accused of an offence under section 382, P. P. C. The allegations against him briefly are that when the bus driven by Umid Ali Shah stopped at the bus stand near Novelty Cinema, Muzaffargarh at about 8‑15 p.m. he along with two others came there. He (Irshad Hussain petitioner) is said to have put his hand into the pocket of Qarar Hussain complainant and took out Rs. 100 as well as the licence and a red colour handkerchief. While leaving the bus Muhammad Salim, co‑accused, is said to have given a knife blow on the eye‑brow of the complainant and Iftikhar co‑accused is said to have given fist blow.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Irshad Hussain petitioner, who is a son of late Fazal Hussain [who was a member of the Provincial Assembly and the Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Muzaffargarh, has been falsely involved by the S. H. O. who has enmity with his elder brother Nawazish Ali. He submits further that a reading of the F. I. R. would show that an offence under section 382, P. P. C. is not made out because it shows no prior preparation on the part of the petitioner for causing death, or hurt, or restraint.

3. The learned State Counsel opposes the application on the ground that an offence under section 382, P. P. C. is punishable with 10 years' R. I.

4. I have gone through the F. I. R. and find that although injuries have been attributed to Muhammad Salim and Iftikhar co‑accused, the role assigned to Irshad Hussain petitioner shows that he is not alleged to have made any preparation', within the meaning of section 382, P. P. C:, A before committing the theft. From the nature of allegation against him, it appears that the petitioner's contention that he was involved due to enmity is probably correct. The interim bail already granted to him is, therefore, confirmed. He is required to join the investigation.

Bail confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.