Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3142/B of 1976, decided on 8^th September 1976.

S. 497-Petitioner, accused of murder, not named in F I. R. lodged by a real brother of deceased-Statement of deceased, mentioning name of petitioner neither recorded in presence of doctor nor an fitness certificate obtained by him-Petitioner only alleges) to have held deceased at time of occurrence and case pending for last 2 years with little progress Held A fit case for grant of bail, in circumstances.-(Bail).

Javaid Amin Nayyar for Petitioner.

Rana Ghaffar for the State.

On 11-6-1974 at above 9-30 p. m. Liaqat petitioner, one Ismail and an unknown person were hurling abuses in street No. 17. Chiragh Din deceased came out of the house and stopped them from behaving in that manner. Ismail and the unknown person caught hold of the deceased whereas Liaqat petitioner gave blow to the deceased with dagger in the abdomen. The occurrence was witnessed by Mohammad Abdullah, Imam Din. Taj Din, Meraj Din and Mohammad Yaqoob. Sultan alias Shahna and Ghulam Farid gave a chase but the accused succeeded in running away. The prosecu tion submitted challan against the two petitioners, Mahmood Hussain the third accused was declared proclaimed offender.

2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Mohammad Abdullah a real brother of the deceased who was an eye-witness of the occurrence had lodged the F. I R. and he had not named Muhammad Arabad petitioner; that Mohammad Abdullah had named Liaqat and Ismail and stated that he knew them previously ; that subsequently the facts of the case were twisted and the name of Mohammad Arshad petitioner was substituted. It was also contended that the occurrence had taken place, on 11-6-74 while the statement of Chiragh Din deceased was recorded, on 16-6-74 and the said statement was not recorded in the presence of the doctor; that without obtaining any certificate that the deceased was fit to make statement the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the deceased. The learned counsel also urged the ground of delay in the proceedings. He pointed out that the challan was submitted in Court, on l6-7-74 and in a period of about two years statements of only five out of 23 witnesses were recorded by the Committing Magistrate.

3. According to the prosecution version, Liaqat Ali petitioner had inflicted dagger blow to the deceased and committed the murder of Chiragh Din intentionally. His case is not fit for the grant of bail. His bail petition is dismissed.

4. The case of Mohammad Arshad petitioner is at a different footing. His name is not mentioned in the F. I. R. The report was lodged by Mohammed Abdullah a real brother of the deceased. Mohammad Abdullah had witnessed the occurrence. According to him, Le knew two of the culprits He named Liaqat and Ismail in the F. I. R. and stated that he would also be able to identify the third accused. He made supplementary statement and named the petitioner in the said statement. Statement of Chiragh Din deceased was recorded without obtaining any certificate from the doctor to the effect that he was fit to make statement. The statement of Chiragh Din deceased was not recorded in the presence of the doctor. Mohammad Arshad petitioner did not inflict any injury to the deceased. According to the prosecution version, he had held the deceased at the tune of occurrence. The case is pending for the last two years. Taking all these facts into consideration, I consider it a fit case for allowing bail to Mohammad Arshad petitioner. He is allowed bail in the sum of Rs 1.0,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Lahore.

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.