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. 143/8 of 1983, decided on 21st February, 1983.
----Ss. 497 & 498, Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307, 326, 325, 148 & 149-Bail-Co-accused who was ascribed grievous injury already released on bail and other three accused persons stated to be armed with sota not alleged to have caused any grievous injury to any of prosecution witnesses also granted bail-Case of cross-versions---Accused petitioner not misusing concession of bail formerly granted to him and cancelled after eight months-Senior police officer making opinion after investigation that case false and registered to set up a plea in murder case-Interim bail of accused petitioner confirmed in circumstances.
Taj Muhammad Khan Laugah for Petition.
Zulfiqari Lahli for the State.
Muhammad Younes Bneetti for the Complainant.
Date of hearing : 21st February, 1983.
Petitioners seek bail in case F. I. R. No. 55, dated 5th May, 1982, registered on the statement of Ghulam Muhammad, under section 307 326/325/148/149, P,P.C. at Police Station Saddar, Burewala. Five persons are stated to have suffered injuries in this occurrence. F. I. R.' has been lodged against eight persons. Except a grievous injury on the upper arm of Ghulam Muhammad and an injury on Khushi Muhammad, all the injuries on the other injured have been declared to be simple. The petitioners were granted bail by the Magistrate vide order dated 16th May, 1982. On a petition moved by the complainant, their bail was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 30th January, 1983. The petitioners have come up against the order of cancellation of bail. They were admitted to pre-arrest bail vide order dated 1st February, 1983.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that a case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. was registered against the comp lainant and others on the statement of Akbar Ali petitioner. The deceased in the murder case was Muhammad Ali, who was uncle of Akbar Ali. It is contended that the present case has been registered against the petitioners and their co-accused to set up a plea in the main murder case. Learned counsel has also argued that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged after a delay of 16 days and that the learned. Addl. Sessions Judge should not have interfered with the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate in granting bail to the petitioners. It is also sub mitted that Abdul Majid, a co-accused of the petitioners, who has been alleged to have caused a grievous injury to Ghulam Muhammad P. W. has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 29th May, 1982 and that the remaining accused have also been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 16th May, 1982, Lastly, it has been contended that the A. S. P., who had con ducted the investigation later on, has opined that the present case was a false case and was got registered by the complainant as a counter version to case F. I. R. No. 51, under section 302/307/ 148/ 149, P.P.C. registered on the statement of Akbar Ali.
3. Learned counsel for the State/Complainant have defended the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the injured in this case were medi cally examined on the same day and that the opinion expressed by the A, S. P. has no bearing.
4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Akbar Ali petitioner who is ascribed a grievous injury himself has also suffered injuries in the occurrence. According to his explanation, he has received injuries during the occurrence in which his uncle Muhammad Ali was murdered. Abdul Majid, co-accused of the petitioners, who has also been ascribed a grievous injury, has already been released on bail by this Court. It is a case of cross version. There is no allegation against the other three petitioners of having caused any grievous injury to any of the P. Ws. They are stated to have been armed with Sotas. The bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled after eight months. There is no mention in the order of Additional Sessions Judge that any allegation of misusing of concession of bail was made. In view of the fact that one of the co-accused of the petitioners, who was ascribed a grievous injury, has already been granted bail by this Court and also in view of the fact that a Senior Police 0Ls has opined after investigation that the case was false and was registered to set up a plea in the murder case, I feel that a case for bail has been made out. The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 1st February, 1983 in confirmed.
Bail confirmed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer