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. 247 of 1981, decided on 28thMarch, 1981.
-----S. 497/498-Bail-All three accused charged with having fired at complainant but complainant remaining unhurt-Refusal of bail by lower Court on ground of an empty having been recovered from points where accused allegedly stood as disclosed by site plan-- Empty in view of material placed on record seeming to have been introduced in case-Case, held, needs further inquiry--Bail allowed.
K. G. Sabir for Petitioner.
Miss Syaria Jabeen Mughfi for the State.
Date of bearing: 28th March, 1981.
Accused Nur Haleem Shah is charged under section 307/34. P. P. C. alongwith Mir Said Ali and Nur (since released on bail by the Court below). He was refused bail by the two Courts below. Hence this application.
The F. I. R. of the occurrence has been lodged by Zar Gul Shah. He stated therein that Umar Siddiq minor son of Qadar Khan was ill and he was taking him on scooter for treatment to the doctor. In the way, the three accused had waylaid him and on seeing them they fired at them. Their firing was however ineffective and they escaped unhurt. Umar Siddiq fell from the scooter and the accused ran away. He alleged that he had a land dispute with the accused party and this was the motive for them to have attempted at his life.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I consider it a fit case for bail, the first reason being that all the three accused are charged to have fired at the complainant. The question therefore is how he escaped unhurt. This question depends upon the evidence to be recorded in the trial Court. Further according to the medical report, Umar Siddiq has a simple injury on his lip. Therefore' for the present the question would be that on seeing the accused party, the complainant stopped and left the scooter out of fear and ran away and as Umar Siddiq was a minor boy, he became unnerved and fell to the ground as a result of which he suffered the simple injury on his lip. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has refused bail to the accused petitioner on the ground that according to the site-plan an empty was recovered from the point where he was allegedly standing. But in view of the material presently placed on the record similar observation seems to: be gratuitous. The complainant has roped in the three accused for firing at him. Therefore a lurking doubt arises in ones mind as to how is it that he escaped unhurt. There is every force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that in view of the material presently placed on the record, the empty allegedly recovered from the point where his client is said to have been standing seems to have been introduced in the case.
For the reasons stated above, the case of the accused/petitioner is arguable. This application is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the accused/petitioner would be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 20, 000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/ 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