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. 136/B of 1975.
---S. 498‑Bail‑Cross‑cases‑Complaint case lodged with in ordinate delay‑Injuries suffered on both sides‑'Counter case standing test of Police investigation‑Bailable warrants initially issued in complaint case‑‑Petitioners accused in complaint case admitted to bail‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/34.
Syed Altaf Hussain Jafri for Petitioners.
S. M Anwar for the State.
S. A. Awan for the Complainant.
At the instance of Sohrab Khan petitioner a case under section 395/307, P. P. C. read with section 1201121 of the Railways Act was registered at Police Station, Railway, Lahore on the 2nd of June, 1974, against Amin, alias Bhola. Mahnoo, Liaqat alias Laki, Irshad (since dead) and some others and as a result of the Investigation that followed all the above‑named accused have been challaned in Court.
After four days after the registration of this case Muhammad Rashid respondent instituted a complaint under section 302/307/34, P. P. C. against the four petitioners accusing them of the murder of Irshad and attempt on the life of others as his counter version of the occurrence in which they were formerly summoned through bailable warrants by the A. C. Lahore who was pleased to admit them to bail on 8th August, 1974, but it was cancelled remanding them to custody by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore on 11th January 1975. They have consequently approached this Court for their release on bail on the ground of false implication through a belated complaint.
It is urged that petitioner's version as incorporated in the F. I. R. had been thrashed and found correct during investigation by the police while the complaint has not undergone this test scrutiny. Although the opinion of police is not a legal evidence yet it lends a premium to the plea set up by the petitioners, even otherwise there are injuries on both sides giving rise to two different versions and the inordinate delay in the complaint implicating them certainly called for a further enquiry in the matter entitling them to bail, I have sent for the record and heard the learned counsel for the com plainant as well as the State who are unable to refuse this contention espe cially when the petitioners were initially summoned through bailable warrants rightly. I have, therefore, to accept this petition and direct that they shall be released from custody on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) each with one surety each to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.
Bail allowed,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer