Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2260/B of 1975, decided on 4th August 1975.

-----S. 497‑Bail--‑[Murder‑case]‑Grounds existing to believe that petitioners not guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life‑Accused young men 16/17 years old Case, held, covered by proviso to S. 497, Cr. P. C.‑Accused admitted to bail, in circumstances of case.‑[Bail].

Mian Hidayat Ullah for Petitioner.

M. A. Zafar for the State.

Petitioners alongwith Noor Ahmad have been involved in a case under. section 302/34, P.P.C. registered on 24‑1d 74 at 9‑30 p.m. at the Police Station Abbas Nagar, Distt: Bahawalpur. The prosecution story given by Muhammad Alam is that he had a dispute of land with Noor Ahmad who had got the land entered in his own name in consolidation proceedings and the complainant was prosecuting the appeal against him for which Noor Ahmad entertained grudge and had threatened the complainant. It is, further, stated that on the date of occurrence, after Ishawela, his daughter Mst. Islam Bibi aged 10/11 year went out to ease. After a little while, Abdur Rashid saw a heap of wood on fire. He raised noise whereupon he alongwith his brother Azam and Abdur Rashid went to the spot. They saw Noor Ahmad and the two petitioners running towards east and they recognized them. After putting the fire down, it was found that underneath lay his daughter Mst. Islam Bibi who had been butchered and her 6 ear‑rings had been taken away after cutting her ears.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners as well as Noor Ahmad were joined in investigation from the very first day. The local Police did not find them involved in the case and so did not arrest theta. Later on, the investigation was entrusted to C.I.A., Bahawalpur. It, too, joined the petitioners in the investigation but did find them involved. Finally, the Crimea Branch, Lahore took up the investigation. It did not find Noor Ahmad involved but arrested the two petitioners on 21st of March 1975. The petitioners applied for bail before the learned Magistrate but the application was rejected on 2‑4‑75 so also their application by the learned Sessions Judge on 24‑5‑75. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that there i9 no evidence whatsoever to connect the petitioners with the commission of the crime. They have been involved on account of sheer suspicion. It is, further, submitted that the petitioners are young boys of 17‑16 years of age respectively, and the case is covered by the proviso to section 497, Cr. P. C.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners are involved in a case of murder and, at this stage, are not entitled to bail. It is, further, contended that no evidence has yet been recorded and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail.

On query, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that incomplete challan had been submitted in the Court. The evidence intended to be produced is that of the three persons mentioned in the F.I.R. to connect the petitioners. But, at the moment, there is no other evidence which is proposed to be produced. The learned Sessions Judge got the petitioners medically examined by a Board for ascertaining their age. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this happened between the order of the learned Magistrate dated the 2‑4‑75 and that of the learned Sessions Judge dated the 24‑5‑75. It is submitted that according to the opinion of the Medical Board, the petitioner No. 1 was about 17 years of the age but below 18 years of age and the petitioner No. 2 of 16 years of age but below 17 years of age. Learned counsel submits that the date of occurrence is 24‑10‑74. Therefore, undeniably, the petitioner No. 2 would be less than 16 years at the time of occurrence and the petitioner No. 1 would be just over 16 years. It is submitted that medical evidence can vary a little in ascertaining the exact age and there is every possibility that petitioner No. 1 might as well be less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State who has been assisted by Muhammad Iqbal Shah, Inspector Crimes Branch, Lahore with record, the Investigation Officer, it is no sure that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or 10 years. There is also the ground of age in favour of the petitioners bringing their case under the proviso to section 497, Cr. P. C. Without making any observation a. regards the merits of the case, the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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