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. 187‑B of 1982, decided an 3rd March, 1982.
‑‑S. 497/498 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/34‑Bail‑Both parties receiving injuries and injuries found on person of accused not explained in F.I.R.‑Matter requires further inquiry‑Bail allowed.
Nisar Hassan Haidri for Petitioners.
Murtaza Ali Zaidi for the State.
Date of hearing : 3rd March, 1982.
This is an application for bail after arrest on behalf of Muhammad Shafi, Imam Bakhsh and Muhammad Ali petitioners in a case under section 307/34, P.P:C. registered on 17th October, 1981 at Police Station, Makhdoom Rashid vide F.I.R.‑ No. 280.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners with one other in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault upon Muhammad Ramzan and Ahmad Bakhsh on the aforementioned date at 3/4 p m. in the area of Mauza Jhoke Lashkar Pur.
So far as the petitioners are concerned it is alleged that Muhammad Ali and Imam Bukhsh were armed with hatchets whereas Muhammad Shaft was holding a soti. They inflicted injuries on the persons of Muhammad Ramzan and Imam Bukhsh P. Ws.
3. It appears that both sides received injuries. On the side of the prosecution, Imam Bukhsh received as many as five simple injuries caused with blunt weapon, out of these, 2 injuries were found on his head. Muhammad Ramzan received as many as 3 injuries, two caused with blunt weapon and the third with sharp‑edged; all these injuries have been declared collectively dangerous to life.
On the other side, Malik Reehan received as many as 10 injuries caused with sharp‑edged as well as blunt weapon. Injury No. 3 inflicted on the right side of the neck is a sharp‑edged injury. Muhammad Ali received 3 injuries with blunt weapon, simple in nature. Imam Bukhsh received 4 injuries, simple in nature, caused with blunt weapon.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both sides are injured and the injuries suffered by the accused party have been suppressed in the First Information Report. He further argues that the police has not registered the case in spite of the fact that the accused party had approached the police and in this respect, a writ petition has been filed in the High Court which is pending adjudication.,
5. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, states that the petition for pre‑arrest bail on behalf of Muhammad Shafi, petitioner No. 1, was rejected by this Court on 2nd December, 1981 and no fresh ground has arisen in the due course of events and that the petitioners having inflicted injuries on the head of Muhammad Ramzan, which have been found collectively dangerous to life, are not entitled.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for he parties, I find that the application for the bail before arrest filed by Muhammad Shafi was dismissed keeping in mind the considerations for the grant of antici patory bail that Muhammad Ali and Imam Bukhsh were arrested on 17th October, 1981 whereas Muhammad Shaft was arrested on 2nd Decem ber, 1981 and that both the sides have received injuries and injuries found A on the person of accused have not been explained in the F.I.R.
Without making any expression lest it may prejudice the merit of the case, I am of the view that the matter requires further inquiry. The petitioners are, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner; Multan.
M.Y.H. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer