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. 727/B of 1973, decided on 23rd February 1973.
-- Ss. 497 & 498-Bail before arrest-Grant of anticipatory bail to criminals, involved in cases punishable with death or transportation for life-Would amount to deprive Investigating Agency of all reason able opportunity of finding out truth and bringing culprits to book-. Cross-cases registered under Ss. 307 & 326, P. P. C. against both parties, relating to same incident and persons on both sides receiving fire-arm and sharp-edged weapon injuries-Bail declined, in circum stances.
Wall Muhammad v. State 1973 P Cr. L J 74 and Allah Ditta v. State 1970 P Cr. L J 665 not applicable.
Sh. Naseerud Din Ahmad for Petitioner.
Kh. Saeedul Hassan for the State.
This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 546/B of 1973, 562/B of 1973 and 727/B of 1973, as they arse out of the same incident.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 546/B of 1973 is an application by Sabir Ali, Jafar Ali avid Allah Banda for grant of bail before arrest.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 562/B of 1973 is an application by their co-accused Muhammad Ali for grant of bail before arrest, and
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 727/B of 1973 is an application by Muhammad Yamin. Muhammad Siddique son of Muhammad Shafi, Shams-ud- Din and Muhammad Siddique son of Qutba, who are accused in the counter case for grant of bail before arrest.
2. The facts of the case bfie8y are that Muhammad Siddique son of Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Yamin had purchased certain piece of land, which was earlier in cultivating possession of Sabir Ali, etc. The latter had grown potatoes over the said land. After the purchase of the land by Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Yamin a dispute arose about the lifting of the potatoes crop, as each side laid claim to it. Members of both sides, armed with various weapons and clashed with each other, as a result of which serious injuries were caused to the, persons of the parties Sabir Ali (petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 546/B of 1973) lodged an F. I. R. No. 52/73 at 10-30 a.m. on 1-2-1973 with regards to the said incident naming the following persons:
(1) Muhammad Rafiq armed with a .12 bore gun.
(2) Muhammad Shafi armed with a revolver.
(3) Muhammad Siddique son of Muhammad Shafi armed with knife.
(4) Shams-ud-Dm,
(5) Muhammad Yamin, and
(6) Muhammad Siddique son of Qutba, all the three armed with sotas.
as having assaulted him and his companions Wazir Ali, Allah Wasaya, Muhammad Ali, Faiz-ul-Hassan and Allah Diwaya.
On the other hand Umar Shah lodged another F.1. R. No. 55/73 at 6-30 p.m. on 2-2-1973 alleging that
(1) Sabir Ali, and
(2) Jafar, armed with guns,
(3) Wazir Ali,
(4) Muhammad Ali. and
(5) Allah Wasaya, armed with hatchets, and
(6) Allah Banda. armed with laths.
had attacked Muhammad Rafiq. Out of the complainant party, in F. I. R. No. 52/73, Sabir Ali (petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 546/B of 1973), Wazir Ali and Allah Wasaya, received fire-arm injuries, while on the other side Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Rafiq received sharp-edged and blunt weapon injuries. One of the injuries caused to Muhammad Rafiq with a sharp-edged weapon was found to be grievous.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners on both sides contended that since there are cross-cases between the parties under section 307/326, Y. P. C., they are entitled to grant of bail. Reliance in this connection was placed on Wall Muhammad v. State (1973 P Cr. L J 74) and Allah Ditta v. State (1970 P Cr. L J 666). Both these cases related to bail after arrest. The above-mentioned authorities are, therefore, not fully applicable to the present case, in which both sides have requested for anticipatory' bail. It bas now become customary for criminals to apply for anticipatory bail even in serious cases involving the penalty of death or transportation for life thus depriving the investigating agency of also reasonable opportunity of finding out the truth and bringing the culprits to book.
4. Having gone through the two F. I. Rs. in question and the number and nature of the injuries caused to members of both sides, I feel this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. All the three petitions are; therefore, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer