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. 249-8 of 1981, decided on 13th April, 1991.
--- S. 497 (5)-Bail, cancellation of-Respondent attributed a japha, while his co-accused assigned role of inflicting fatal injuries to deceased ---- Participation of respondent in occurrence however, found open to further inquiry by Session Court, at time of granting bail-Order, held, not perverse, in circumstances-Cancellation of bail declined.
S. M. Nazim for Petitioner.
Ch. Ghulam Murtaza for Respondent No. 1.
Nazeer Rindhawa for the State.
This is a petition under section 497 (5), Cr. P. C. for the cancellation of bail of Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent, granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, on 18thAugust, 1980.
2. The prosecution case is that on 13th April 1980 Riaz deceased was present at the shop of one Muhammad Yaqoob. Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent, and Abdul Wahid, Bashir Ahmad and Niaz, co-accused, came there and started abusing the deceased and causing him injuries with bottle blows. Riaz Ahmad ran towards his house. The petitioner and his co-accused chased him. Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent, caught Riaz Ahmad in his japha and the remaining co-accused inflicted churri blows to him. Allah Ditta P. W. rescued Riaz Ahmad, who succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. A case under section 302/34, P. P. C. was registered against the respondent and his co-accused.
3. On 18th August, 1980 Ch. Manzoor Hussain Basra, Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, admitted Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent, to bail on the ground that the Medical Superintendent had reported the age of the respondent as about 16 years, which meant that he was below 16 on the date of occurrence, and that the respondent was only attributed a japha and the co-accused could have inflicted churri blows to the deceased without his assistance. The present petitioner moved an application for cancellation of bail of the respondent before the same learned Judge on the ground that the age of the respondent was above 16 years at the time of occurrence. In this connection the birth certificate of the respondent was attached with the application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the question of his participation in the occurrence was open to further inquiry and that he had no jurisdiction to review his own earlier order.
4. The petitioner has now, moved a fresh petition for cancellation of bail before this Court under section 497(5), Cr. P. C.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is named in the F. I. R., that he initially inflicted injuries on the deceased with bottle blows, that he then ran with his co-accused and then caught the deceased in his japha, facilitating his co-accused to inflict knife injuries on the deceased. In these circumstances, he submits that the respondent is not entitled to retain the concession of bail.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to this case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the participation of the respondent in the occurrence is a question which calls for further inquiry. In this view of the matter, the order in favour of the respondent is not perverse. There is no merit in this petition, which 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