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. 2082/B of 1982, decided on 30th August, 1982.
-- S. 497 - [Murder-case]-Bait-Further inquiry - Case against petitioner arising out of same F. I. R. under two separate offences one under S. 302, P. P. C. and other under S. 10 of Hadood Ordinance-Petitioner acquitted of charge under S. 10, Hudood Ordinance on basis of evidence of same set of witnesses, also to appear for prosecution in murder case-Such witnesses totally denying prosecution version and even complainant disowning F.I.R. in question-Case of petitioner, held, that of further inquiry and petitioner entitled to benefit of doubt arising at bail stage-Bail allowed in circumstances.-[Benefit of doubt].
Ch. M. A slam Zae for Petitioner.
Iqbal Cheema for the State.
Date of hearing : 30th August, 1982
This order is to read with my interim order dated 17th August, 1982 when notice was issued to the State. Today the learned counsel for the State has appeared together with Boota Khan, A. S. I. with record. The position now stands affirmed that the case arises out of the same F. I. R. i.e. No. 374 dated 12th October, 1981, Police Station Baghbanpura, district Gujranwala tinder two separate offences; one under section 302, P. P. C. read with section 10 of Ordinance, VII of 1979. It is admitted that the set of witnesses in the two cases are the same though to meet with the legal requirements two, separate trials had to be held under different sections. The petitioner stands acquitted of charge under section 10 of Ordinance, VII of 1979. on the basis of evidence of the same set of witnesses who are to appear for the prosecution in the murder case. The witnesses have totally disowned the prosecution version. So much so that even the complainant appearing in the Hadood Ordinance case denied the lodging of the F. I. R. in question or his knowledge regarding the occurrence. These facts are not denied by the learned counsel for the State or the Investigating Officer.
2. In view of these peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is that of further enquiry. The petitioner is entitled to benefits of doubt arising at the bail stage. I would, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., 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