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. 1723-B of 1982, decided on 21st July, 1982,
----S. 497-Bail, grant of---(Murder-case)-Petitioner's name existing in F. I. R. with allegation that he intimated assailants about arrival of complainant and deceased in village-Petitioner having no motive whatsoever to conspire with enemies of complainant and deceased to facilitate murder of deceased-Role attributed to petitioner in F. I. R. alto not inculpatory in nature-Mere information furnished by petitioner to accused assailants about arrival of complainant and deceased in village, held, would not amount to conspiracy-Bail allowed, in circumstances.
M. Naeem Ullah Khan for Petitioner.
Abdur Rasheed for the State.
Heard. Record of investigation brought by the aforementioned Police Officer has been gone into and considered.
2. The petitioner, is involved in a case punishable under sections 302, 364, 148 and 149/109, P. P. C. arising out of F. I. R. No. 58/82 Police Station, Qila Sobha Singh, dated 6th June, 1982.
3. Allegations against the petitioner, according to the contents of the aforementioned F. I. R. are that when on 5th June, 1982 the complainant and Pir Bakhsh deceased reached their village Fazeelpur at about mid night, Nawab Din petitioner saw them and he informed Ghulam Rasul and others about the arrival of the complainant and Pir Bakhsh in the village. Pursuant to this information furnished by the petitioner Ghulam Rasul and others who were inimical towards the complainant and the deceased lodged an attack on the complainant, deceased and other injured P. Ws. Pir Bakhsh deceased was abducted in injured condition, He died of the injuries subsequently.
4. No role has been attributed to the petitioner in the actual occur rence. No overt act has been ascribed to him. No motive is even attributed to the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that neither any overt act has been attributed to the petitioner nor he was present at the time of the occurrence and thus the petitioner is in no way connected with the murder of Pir Bakhsh deceased.
6. The learned counsel for the State, however, contends that the petitioner has been named in the F. I. R. He should not; therefore, be bailed out.
7. As already observed, the name of the petitioner exists in the F. I. R. with this allegation only that he intimated Ghulam Rasul and other assailants about the arrival of the complainant and the deceased in the village. The mere information furnished by the petitioner to the assailants about the arrival of the deceased and the complainant in the village, does not amount to conspiracy. He may have passed such information innocen tly or some move for reconciliation might be in the offing. The petitioner, according to the contents of the F. I. R. as also according to the contents of the record of investigation, had no motive whatsoever to conspire with the enemies of the complainant and the deceased to facilitate the murder of the deceased. The role attributed to the petitioner in the F. I. R. is not inculpatory in nature.
8. In this view of the matter, in regard to the petitioner, it is a case of further enquiry. The petitioner is, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Narowal.
Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer