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 Bail Application No. 314 of 1982, decided on 28th April, 1982.
‑‑ S. 497 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 34‑Bail [Murder‑case] ‑ Common intention‑Applicant alongwith co accused coming together at place of wardat where deceased received bullet injuries at hands of co‑accused on instigation of applicant--‑Crime pistol recovered on pointation of co‑accused also belonging to applicant‑--Circumstances, held, prima facie indicate that applicant and co‑accused came to scene' of offence with common intention‑Bail declined, in circumstances.
Muhammad Ashiq v. State 1971 P Cr. L 1778 ref.
Imdad Hussain Kazi for Applicant.
A. A. Muhammadally, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing : 28th April, 1982.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted, that in F. I. R., name of the applicant is only mentioned as suspect and no part is assigned to him at all. He further submitted, that the revolver was recovered from the possession of co‑accused Qayoom, although it belongs to the applicant, who has a valid licence for the same. He further submitted, that according to the statements of P. Ws. Momin K ban and Najib under section 164, Cr. P. C., which statements were recorded in the presence of the applicant and the co‑accused the firing is attributed to co‑accused Qayoom and as such the case against the applicant would require further inquiry at the stage of trial. In support of these contentions, learned counsel relied on case reported in 1971 P Cr. L. J. 778.
Learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing for the State has opposed the above bail application, on the ground that two P. Ws. whose statements under section 164, Cr. P. C. were recorded in the presence of the applicant and are related to both the parties, it is clear that present applicant alongwith co‑accused Qayoom came together and at the time of incident, according to the statements of these two eye‑witnesses, present applicant instigated co‑accused Qayoom to kill the deceased and consequently co‑accused fired shots at the deceased. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General further submitted, that the pistol belongs to the present applicant who has valid licence of it, but the same has been recovered at the pointation of co‑accused Qayoom from broken boats and as such this fact also corroborates the statements of P. Ws. in question, to great extent.
Without going into the merits of the statements of P. Ws. in question, prima facie it is clear from the statements of these two P. Ws. that applicant alongwith co‑accused Qayoom came together at the place of wardat, where deceased received bullet injuries at the bands of accused Qayoom, which according to these witnesses was at the applicant instigation of the present. Even the recovery of the pistol, belonging to the present applicant, at the pointation of co‑accused Qayoom, lays supports prima facie that applicant and co‑accused Qayoom came to the scene of offence, with common intention.
Therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage and as such I dismiss the above bail application. However, I would like to mention that any observations made by me in respect of evidence of any prosecution witnesses and/or other facts of the present case are based on tentative assessment, on the basis or the papers which are before me and as such they could not be binding upon the learned trial Court who will be at .liberty to consider these issues on the basis oft the evidence, that may be led before it. I would further like to mention, that the applicant will be at liberty to move fresh bail application, before the learned trial Court, after recording of some evidence, if he is so advised.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer