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. 977-B of 1982, decided on 5th May, 1982.
--S. 497-Bail, grant of-[Murder-case]-Except general allegation of accused having given danda blows to deceased hitting him on various part no injury specifically attributed to any one of accused Private Medical Practitioner who attended deceased in first instance giving affidavit to effect that mother of deceased told him that decea sed suffered injuries by a fall from tractor-Bail allowed, in circumstances.
Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioners.
Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim II for the State.
Date of hearing : 5th May, 1982.
Muhammad Akram, Manzur Hussain and Muhammad Aslam petitioners, who are involved in a murder case, have moved this petition for bail.
2. The F.I.R. version of the occurrence is that one month prior to the occurrence which took place on 1st June, 1981, Muhammad Malik Lambardar asked Khadim Hussain deceased to help him in cutting the wheat crop but he refused to oblige him, upon which he abnsed him and also gave him fist blows. On Ist June, 1981 Khadim Hussain deceased was sleeping at the Behak of Abdul Ghani. Aforesaid Muhammad Malik went there and asked him to accompany him to village Argan for seeing the Tamasha. Khadim Hussain started for the village and he had hardly covered a distance of one Killa when all the three petitioners armed with Dandas surrounded him and gave him Danda blows hitting his head, left arm and back. In the meantime, Irshad Ahmad and Muhammad Buta, brother of the deceased, also reached the spot: The latter tried to rescue the deceased but the petitioner injured him as well. Muhammad Malik afore-mentioned raised Lalkaras that Khadim Hussain should be taught a lesson. On the alarm of Buta, Muhammad Sharif and Siddiq, brothers of Muhammad Malik, also reached the spot and took Khadim Husain injured and his mother Mst. Fatima to Hafizabad on a tractor where he was treated by a private practitioner but some days after he succumbed to his injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the F. I. R. was lodged five days after the alleged occurrence, the injuries which proved fatal are not specifically attributed to any of the petitioners, three accused persons, namely Muhammad Malik, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Siddiq, were found innocent during the investigation and the private practitioner, namely, Ghulam Hussain, gave an altogether different version, therefore, the case of the petitioners needs further inquiry. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
4. I have gone through the relevant material. The occurrence took place on 1st June, 1981 at about evening time and the F. I. R. was lodged on 5th June, 1981 at 5 p.m. A copy of the report under section 173. Cr. P. C. has been placed on the file which shows that Muhammad Malik, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Siddiq were found innocent during the investigation and only the present petitioners were challaned. The post-mortem report shows that there were eight injuries on the dead body, out of which four were on the head and the rest were on the back of left shoulder, back of upper part of left upper arm, front neck and back of left wrist joint. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 4 on the head were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. These injuries have not been specifically attributed to any of the Petitioners. There is a general allegation that they gave Danda blows to Khadim Hussain hitting his head, left arm and back. The private practitioner, namely, Ghulam Hussain, was examined during the investigation and a photostat copy of his affidavit has also been placed on the file which is to the effect that the deceased and his mother told him that the deceased suffered the injuries by a fall from the tractor. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that the case of the petitioners requires further inquiry. I therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.
Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer