Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1732‑B of 1976, decided on 24th May 1976.

---S. 497‑Bail‑Murder taking place in petitioner's house by firing a gunshot and petitioner seen running away alongwith co‑accused immediately after occurrence‑Nothing to show complainant or prosecution witnesses having any motive to falsely implicate peti tioner‑Bail declined, in circumstances.

Hakim Syed Akhtar Irshad for Petitioner.

Roshan Ali Sandhu for the State.

Petitioner Mukhtar Ahmad alongwith co‑accused Ghulam Mehboob and Zairat is involved in a case under section 302/34, P. P. C. relating to the murder of Noor Muhammad deceased. At the report of gunshot heard at about 3‑00 a.m. on 14‑6‑1975, Ch. Abdul Aziz complainant Proceeded to the spot.

In the way, he saw three persons running one of whom was armed with '12 bore gun. The complainant was told by Abdur Rehman a shopkeeper that the latter had, on waking up, seen that the guest of Mukhtar Ahmad himself was not present at his cot. The witnesses found the deceased lying dead with a head injury. Rehman and Khanoon P. Ws. also arrived. In the meantime, the petitioner came and, on enquiry, told the witnesses that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the mother of co‑accused Zairat, for which he had been turned out from the house of Zairat where he had been living, that he had later developed intimacy with the wife of Ghulam Mehboob co‑accused, at which he and his father had been turned out of the village, that a plan had been prepared by the accused persons to kill the deceased, in pursuance of which the petitioner had invited the deceased and that Zairat who had sat and talked with the deceased in the night, bad gone and fetched Ghulam Mehboob who had fired the shot when the deceased had been sleeping.

2. The petitioner had applied for bail but the same was rejected by the Court of Session on 7‑4‑1976. The contention is that the only material against the petitioner is extra judicial confession attributed to him which material alone is not sufficient to raise any presumption as to his guilt unless corroborated by an independent circumstance, which corroboration is not available. I find that Hayat and Nazir P. Ws. had, according to their state ments, seen the petitioner running alongwith his co‑accused at the relevant time and they had identified the petitioner. The complainant and the other witnesses are not shown to have had any motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The occurrence had taken place at the house of the petitioner.

3. In the circumstance, I am not inclined to allow bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed.

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.