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. 1222/11 of 1976, decided on 28th April 1976.
‑‑ S. 497‑Petitioner, accused of murdering a taxi‑driver, after hiring his taxi and caught red‑handed while moving in same taxi‑A cigarette case and a lighter, belonging to deceased driver also recovered. from petitioner‑Bail declined in circumstances.
Ch. Riasat Ali for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Latif for A. G. for the State.
Date of hearing : 28th April 1976.
The petitioner is involved alongwith three others in a case under section 302/397/34, P. P. C. The case as unfolded by the prosecution is that the petitioner, alongwith his co‑accused hired a taxi from Lahore and for the taxi murdered its driver, Muhammad Ashiq, on the way. The taxi was recovered from the petitioner Muhammad Iqbal and two others, namely Amanat Ali and Muhammad Jamil. From the petitioner were also recovered a cigarette case and a cigarette lighter belonging to the deceased, on which the name of the petitioner was engraved. Riaz and Muhammad Sarwar stated that the petitioner, alongwith his co‑accused Amanat Ali and Muhammad Jamil, asked for repair of the taxi which had broken down meanwhile. The petitioner applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat who rejected the application on 17‑9‑1975. The petitioner has filed the present application for bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that one co accused of the petitioner, Muhammad Yousaf, has been allowed bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 3168/13/75 and the petitioner is also entitled to bail. It is, next, contended that it is more than a year now that the petitioner is in jail and there is no likelihood of his being put to trial in a reasonable time. It is, further, contended that the only evidence against the petitioner is that of the recoveries of cigarette case and lighter alleged to be belonging to the deceased. Not only that the recoveries have been implanted but these are not sufficient to warrant an inference that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner was arrested alongwith two others while they were going on the taxi whose driver they had murdered.
4. The petitioner is charged alongwith three others for heinous offence of murder by playing fraud in so far as that they hired a taxi and murdered its driver for the benefit of the taxi. The petitioner was arrested alongwith two others while they were going on the taxi after the murder. Recoveries of cigarette case and lighter, with the name of the deceased thereon, have been effected from the petitioner. The case of Muhammad Yousaf co accused of the petitioner who had been granted bail was different. Muhammad Yousaf was granted bail as he was not arrested while driving away the taxi after the murder of the driver. As regards those three persons who were in the taxi when it was hauled up, besides the petitioner, another person was Amanat Ali. The later applied for bail in this Court vide 4002/13/75. His application was rejected on 23‑12‑75. The case of the petitioner is by no means different than that of Amanat Ali. In all the 'f circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner.
The application is, therefore, rejected.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer