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. 1956/8 of 1982, decided on 4th August, 1982.
----S. 497-Bail, grant of-(Murder-case)-Grant of bail to petitioners opposed on ground that (i) eye-witnesses mentioned in F. I. R. im plicated them, (ii) assessment of evidence at bail stage-Would not be proper-Case against petitioners, however, found doubt ful because an independent and injured witness exonerating them, Held, A case of further inquiry within meaning of S. 497 (2), Cr. P. C.-Bail allowed, in circumstances.
Aftab Farrukh for Appellant.
Abdul Qadeer Waraich for the State.
Date of hearing : 4th August, 1982.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Aman Ullah Khan and Khan Babadur Khan alias Muhammad Munir Khan, petitioners in a case under sections 302, 307/34, P. P. C. registered at Police Station Sadar Mian wali, vide F. I. R. No. 245 dated 3rd August, 1981.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault upon Ghulam Qadir deceased and thereby caused his death and grievous injury to Ghulam Muhammad, P. W. on 3rd August, 1981 in the area of Chowk Pavelian, Mianwali City. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and that Ghulam Muhammad, the injured eye-witness has exonerated the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the State after going through the police file has stated that the case was ultimately investigated by Mr. Zafar Ullah Khan, S. I. Crimes Branch, Sargodha Range,. who has declared the case against the petitioner as doubtful. The learned counsel for the State has however, opposed this application on the ground that the other eye witnesses mentioned in the F. I. R. have implicated the petitioner and that at this stage it would not be proper to assess the evidence.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that according to Zafar Ullah Khan. S. I., Crimes Branch, Sargodha Range, the case against the petitioners is doubtful inasmuch Ghulam Muhammad, the independent injured eye-witness has clearly stated that these petitioner who were previously known to him, had not participated in the occurrence and were not present at the spot. It is, therefore, very much clear that opinion of the Investigating Officer is based on the statement of the injured eye-witness who has also exonerated the petitioners in the statement recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the question of guilt of the petitioners requires further inquiry within the meaning of section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. They are accordingly allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C./Illaqa Magistrate, Mianwali.
Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer