Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2295-B of 1981, decided on 8th October 1981.

-- S. 497-Grant of bail, principle of ---[Murder-case] ---Deceased sitting near sugarcane-crusher when petitioner coming there and giving a kick blow from back on neck of deceased and then repeating kicks and also giving him fist blows-Petitioner also in Jail for last 10 months-Intention to cause death, held, not vocal in circumstances and case ultimately may not result in either of maximum sentences provided for offence of murder-Petitioner allowed bail in circumstances.

The offence under section 302, P. P. C is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Bail is not to be granted in such offences unless reasonable grounds appear qua the accused having not committed offence, but this is not the only criteria. I think the Courts can make tentative assessment of the allegations and come to a tentative conclusion that in particular circumstances of the case even though the sentence provided is death or imprisonment for life but ultimately the merits of the case may not warrant any of such sentence. If the data available is such that the assessment can be made about the possibility of lesser sentence the grant of concession of bail can be considered.

Amir v. The State P L D 1972 S C 277 and Muhammad 41taf v. Nazir Ahmad etc. P L D 1975 Lah. 568 ref.

Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioner.

Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in case F. I. R. No. 316 dated 19th December, 1980 Police Station Bhawana, District Jhang. The First Information Report was lodged by one Bhai Khan stating therein that the deceased was sitting near the sugar-cane squeezer when the petitioner came there and gave a kick blow from the back on the neck of the deceased and then repeated kicks and also gave him fist blows. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be a previous incident in which the deceased had slapped the petitioner. The deceased died before any medical aid was provided. According to the post-mortem report the deceased had received three injuries. 2 lacerations on the back of lower chest, one swelling on the back of neck and many lacerations on the back of chest, 5th cervical vertebrae was found broken and spinal-cord was found cut. The injury on the neck of the deceased was found to be the cause of death.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the occurrence was not the result of a pre-plan, and the fact is borne out from the circumstance that the petitioner was not armed with any weapon. It is argued by him that intention to murder is to be assessed from the circumstances appearing from the allegations levelled in the First Informa tion Report. He has vehemently argued that no such intentions appear from .the contents of the First Information Report. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon Amir v. The State (P L D 1972 S C 277) and Muhammad Altaf v. Nazir Ahmad etc. (P L D 1975 Lah. 568).

3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. It is argued by him that motive has been alleged against the petitioner, and the petitioner being the only accused, there is no material on the basis of which the case may be deemed to be one of doubts.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The offence under section 302, P. P. C. is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Bail is not to be granted in such offences unless reasonable grounds appear qua the accused having not committed offence, Gut this is not the only criteria. I think the Courts can make tentative assessment of the allegations and come to a tentative conclusion that in particular circumstances of the case even though the sentence provided is death or imprisonment for life but ultimately the merits of the case may not warrant any of such sentence. If the data available is such that the assessment can be made about the possibility lesser sentence 1 think the grant of concession of bail can be considered. In the present case the injuries have been caused in such a manner that it is difficult to assume conclusively that the petitioner had the knowledge that his act will certainly cause death. This may not be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case still for the purposes of bail it is enough to say that the injuries were caused by the petitioner in such a manner that the intention to commit murder is not at least not vocal. The case ultimately may not result in either of the maximum sentences provided for the offence. The petitioner is already in jail for the last about ten months.

In the circumstances enumerated above. I feel inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. He shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot.

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.