Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4330/B of 1977, decided on 27th November 1977.

S. 497-Bail pressed on Investigating Officer's observation made in Zimini, stating defence evidence to be acceptable but referring petitioner's case for judicial scrutiny-Fact that petitioners also sustained injuries during occurrence however, making defence plea doubtful-Held No legal justification to enlarge petitioners on bail-Bail declined, in circumstances.

Syed Ashiq Hussain Rizvi for Petitioners.

Muhammad lqbal Malik for the State.

The main ground urged on behalf of Muhammad Ashraf and Suleman petitioners for grant of bail is that the Investigating Officer in his last Zlmini dated 12-9-1976 observed that during investigation some people appeared before him and stated, that Muhammad Ashraf and Suleman petitioners reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence was over and they therefore did not participate in it. The Investigating Officer had further observed in the said Zimini that although the defence was acceptable yet he could not ignore the direct evidence relied upon by the prosecution and therefore left the fate of these petitioners at the discretion of the trial Court after recording the evidence. The petitioners had raised this plea more than once before the Sessions Judge and mentioned by him in the Ziminis, their defence plea was acceptable. It is alleged by the State Counsel that the police may have shown this favour illegally for some ulterior motive and for the same reason the petitioners had got photostat copies of the Ziminis which otherwise are not permissible under the rules. Another circumstance which goes against the petitioners is the presence of injuries on their persons which they received during the same occurrence. According to the defence counsel Muhammad Ashraf petitioner could not possibly participate in the occurrence as his own marriage was to take place on the day of occurrence. Suleman petitioner is his uncle while Muhammad Ali co-accused is his real father who is alleged to have caused the fatal blows to the deceased. There was no legal bar for the petitioners to join others in attacking the deceased. It they could reach immediately after the occurrence as they themselves alleged, they could also reach the place of occurrence a little earlier and participate in the occurrence. In any case this matter will be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence.

2. After hearing the counsel for the parties at length and 'goin through the relevant material available on the record, I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I see no legal justification to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Consequently this petition fails and the same is hereby 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.