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 for Special Leave to Appeal No. 63‑R of 1979, decided on 7th October, 1979.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 20‑6‑1979 in Cr. Misc. No. 2133/8/79).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
‑‑ S. 497‑Bail‑Accused petitioner clearly named in F. I. R. as being one of assailants of deceased although such report lodged with two days' delay‑Direct implication of accused petitioner by complainant and challan submitted by Investigating Officer‑Held, High Court could not arrive at conclusion that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that accused petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life‑Refusal of bail by High Court justified in circumstances of case.
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 7th October, 1979.
C J.‑The petitioner along with two others, is facing prosecution for the murder of one Khushi Muhammad on the allegations that he, in furtherance of the common intention of all the three accused persons, inflicted a soti blow on the deceased, whereas his co‑accused Muhammad Bashir gave a hatchet blow on the head of the deceased, which caused his death. The petitioner's applications for bail have been dismissed by the Sessions Court and the High Court.
Leave to appeal is sought on the grounds that there was a delay of two days in lodging the F. I. R. which has not been satisfactorily explained by the first informant ; and that during the course of re‑investigation of the incident by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, several persons had stated that the real culprits were some other persons, and one Nazir Ahmad had, in fact, asserted that in his presence the deceased was injured by a stone thrown by one Saeed Ahmad. The learned counsel contends that in these circumstances the High Court was in error in refusing bail, as this was clearly a case for further inquiry.
We do not see any merit in these submissions for the reason that even though there has been delay in reporting the incident, the petitioner is clearly named in the F. I. R. as being one of the assailants of the deceased. The medical evidence showed that the fatal injury was inflicted by a hatchet, and, accordingly, the statement alleged to have been made by one Nazir Ahmad before the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the deceased was injured by a stone thrown by one Saeed Ahmad would hardly benefit the petitioner. 1n view of the direct implication of the petitioner by the complainant and the fact that a challan has been submitted against him by the Investigating Officer, it was not possible for the High Court to arrive at the conclusion that there were no unreasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. We consider, therefore, that the High Court was justified in refusing bail.
The petition, accordingly, 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