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. 1765--B of 1982, decided on 28th July, 1982.
‑‑ S. 498 ‑Bail before arrest‑Attempted murder ‑-- Two versions regarding same occurrence and which party aggressor yet to be determined‑Injuries allegedly caused by petitioners declared simple and question of their vicarious liability calling for further inquiry‑‑Mere fact of recoveries of weapons of offence having yet to be effected from petitioners, held, not a good ground to refuse relief to them‑Bail confirmed, in circumstances.
Ch. Ghulam Murtaza for Petitioners.
Iqbal Mahmood Awan for the Complainant.
Sh. Muhammad Islam for the State.
Date of hearing : 28th July, 1982.
This is an application for pre‑arrest bail on behalf of Muhammad Asraf, Muhammad Akhtar and Mustafa petitioners in a case under sections 307‑325/148/149, P. P. C. registered at Police Station City Sheikhu pura vide F. I. R. No. 334/82 dated 1st July, 1982. The application to the extent of Mustafa petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 15th July, 1982 and notice to the State was issued with regard to the petitioners Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Akhtar.
2. The prosecution case is that Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Akhtar petitioner 1 and 2 alongwith Mustafa co‑accused in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault upon Muhammad Abbas on 1st July, 1982 in the area of Mohallah Rasulpura. It has been alleged that Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Akhtar petitioners were armed with soras and they caused simple injuries to the victim whereas, their co‑accused namely Mustafa caused grievous injury.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are cross cases, on the side of the petitioners, one person namely Muhammad Ashraf received three injuries, out of which one injury has been declared grievous and as such it is a fit case for the grant of pre‑arrest bail.
As against this the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application on the grounds‑--
(i) that the recoveries of the weapons of offence are yet to be directed from petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.
(ii) that after having been released on bail the petitioners have misused the concession of bail by threatening the witnesses and that two reports No. 10 and 26 have been entered in the roznamcha in this respect.
4. After hearing the learned connsel for the parties, I find that there are two versions and it is yet to be determined as to who was the aggressor, injuries allegedly caused by the petitioners Nos, 1 and 2 have been declared simple and as such the question of their vicarious liability needs further inquiry. As for objection No. 1 raised by the learned State counsel that the petitioners have not joined the investigation and as such recovery of the weapons of offence are yet to be effected, the A. S. I. states that he had not summoned in writing the petitioners to join the investigation and as such this objection has no force. As far objection No. 11, I am informed by the A. S. I. that on the basis of the two reports entered in the roznamcha complaints under sections 107/150 Cr. P. C. were prepared and presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction and are pending adjudications. In view of this statement I am of the opinion that the two reports which are subjudice have to be excluded from consideration. Furthermore, the mere fact that the recoveries of weapons are yet to be effected from the petitioners is not a good ground to refuse relief to the petitioners.
5. For what has been stated above the pre‑arrest bail already granted, to the petitioners is hereby confirmed.
This petition stands disposed of.
Bail confirmed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer