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 Petition No. 68‑P of 1978, decided on 5th October 1978.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 17‑9‑1978 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 474 of 1978).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail‑Complainant receiving fire‑arm injury in a broad daylight occurrence and attributing it to petitioner‑No indica tion on record as to why complainant should falsely substitute petitioner for real assailant and no suggestion of enmity between peti tioner and complainant‑High Court, held, right in taking note of fact that petitioner, on allegations made against him, prima facie guilty of offence punishable with imprisonment for life and accordingly not entitled to bail.
Raza A. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court or Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 5th October 1978.
.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court on the 19th of September, 1978, whereby bail granted to him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nowshera, in a pending murder case was cancelled.
In the First Information Report made by the injured person Salamat Khan on the 15th of March, 1978, the fire‑arm injury sustained by the complainant was attributed to the petitioner, although it was alleged that his co‑accused, namely, Baland Khan and his son Momin Khan were also present at the spot. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail on the ground that in a case previously registered by the police it was alleged that there was enmity between the petitioner and his co‑accused Baland Khan, and that there had been, in fact, firing between the parties, and, therefore, it was not probable that the petitioner could have joined Baland Khan and his son for attacking the complainant Salamat Khan. This view has not, however, appealed to the learned Judge in the High Court, who has observed that the petitioner was directly charged by Salamat Khan for effective firing, and hence not entitled to bail.
The main ground urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the petitioner is named as the person who had injured the complainant by a fire shot, yet the learned Judge in the High Court was in error in not taking note of the improbability of the story narrated by the complainant in view of the previous incident between the petitioner and his co‑accused. The learned counsel submits that in the circumstances it was clearly a case for further inquiry.
We regret, we do not see any substance in these submissions. Whatever be the state of feelings between the petitioner and his co‑accused, the fact remains that in a broad‑day occurrence the complainant Salamat Khan received a fire‑arm injury on his thigh, and be attributed it to the present petitioner. There is no indication on the record as to why the complainant should falsely substitute the present petitioner for the real assailant, and no suggestion of enmity between the petitioner and the complainant has been put forward at this stage. As a result the learned Judge in the High Court was right in taking note of the fact that on the allegations made against the petitioner he was prima facie guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life and, accordingly, not entitled to bail.
As a result, the petition fails and is hereby 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