Find a Lawyer

Criminal Dail Application No. 17 of 1980, decided on 20th January 1980.

‑‑ S. 497 (2)‑Bail‑Applicant although implicated in First Information Report for committing assault and attempted murder yet completely exonerated by witnesses including injured and no other piece of evidence available against him‑Prosecution case, held, considerably affected, in circumstances.

Barkhurdar v. Kafayat Ali 1978 S C M R 30 rel.

Ruknuddin Kasmi for Applicant.

M. 1. Memon, Addl. A‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 20th January, 1980.

The facts according to F. I. R. lodged by one Islamuddin on 14th February, 1979 at police station B' Section, Sukkur, are that he owns a "Pan‑Bedi" cabin in Marich Bazar, whereas his brother Abu‑Bakar is employee of Muslim General Store Sukkur. Liaquat s/o Habibullah Kasai (the applicant) is also resident of same Mohallah. It was on Friday when complainant's brother Abu Bakar had gone to him at his cabin and both were sitting when at about 4.30 p. m. Liaquat reached there with a meat cutting" knife in his hand. He abused Abu Bakar and asked him as to why be was speaking ill of him before his friend Anwar Mangi and he would therefore not spare him and kill him. After saying this Liaquat assaulted Abu Bakar with a knife who fell down as a result of it. The complainant raised cries which attracted his father Ziauddin, neighbourer, Maqbool Illahi and other people who came running and rescued Abu Bakar. The accused ran away after abusing him. They saw Abu Bakar had a knife injury on right side of his body and was bleeding. The complainant went to police station alongwith his brother Abu Bakar and lodged such report.

The police after usual investigation sent up the applicant to stand trial under sections 307, 326 and 504, P. P. C.

The bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur, who was pleased to reject it.

The learned counsel for the applicant contends that though applicant has been implicated by the complainant in his F. I. R. but subsequently he, Abu‑Bakar and Ziauddin. father of the complainant have sworn in affidavits on 7th January, 1980 completely exonerating the applicant. He also points out that there is no recovery of any incriminating article from the applicant and the only evidence against him as disclosed in the F. I. R. was ocular testimony which has been considerably affected by exculpatory affidavits of the above‑said witnesses. He relies upon 1978 S C M R 30 and 137, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court, have granted bail on such considerations holding the case to be one which required further inquiry as contemplated by section 497 (2), Cr. P. C.

The learned Addl. A‑G does not oppose grant of bail to the applicant as ocular testimony against him has been considerably affected by affidavits of the injured, his father and grandfather within few days of the occurrence and there being no other piece of evidence against him.

After having beard the learned counsel for the applicant and State, I feel that the applicant though implicated in the F. I. R. has been completely exnorated by witnesses, including injured which has considerably affected the whole case. There is no other piece of evidence against him. The citations referred to above are also on the same principle. Therefore without going into the merits of the case, I think this case would fall within scope of further, inquiry as contemplated by section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. and grant bail to the applicant who shall be released on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 10,000 and P. R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur.

Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.