Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 202 of 1981, decided on 3rd February, 1982.

---S, 497‑Bail of petitioner accused of offence under S. 307/148, P.P. C. pressed on grounds (i) delay in lodging of F. I. R. (ii) medical evidence showing occurrence as reported not correct and incident not such as reported in F. I. R.‑Held, reasonable case made out for further inquiry as to time of incident‑Bail allowed.

1982 P Cr. L J 30 and 1980 S C M R 889 ref.

Khan Afsar Khan for Petitioner.

Bashirullah Khan, Asstt. Advocate‑General for the State.

Date of hearing : 3rd February, 1982.

Rustam Khan has applied for the grant of bail in Case F. 1. R. No. 125, registered under sections 307/148/149, P. P. C. His such prayer was rejected by the learned Ilaqa Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Abbottabad.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reading the F. I. R. argued that the occurrence was reported to have taken place on 17th October, 1981 at Digar Wela' and the report of the occurrence was lodged at 10 p.m. the same day when Police Station was at a distance of 11/12 miles. He submitted that there was a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. He also argued that the medical reports Annexure 'B' and Annexure 'C' of Faqir Muhammad and Muhammad Arif show ‑that the occurrence as reported was not correct. He pointed out that Faqir Muhammad was examined by the doctor on 18th October, 1981 at 4‑45 p. m. and the entrance wound No. 11 and exit wound No. 12 mentioned in the medical report Annexure B' were giving bad smell, which means that the wounds were old. The Medical Officer has also given in his report the duration of wound as two days. The learned counsel urged that in the light of the medical report referred to above Faqir Muhammad may have received injuries on 16th October, 1981 and not on 17th October, 1981, as stated in the F. I. R. He also submitted that injury received by Muhammad Arif, who was also examined on 18th October, 1981 at 9‑15 a.m. vide report An nexure C' was within 24 hours. He argued that in the light of these two reports it appears that the incident was not one as reported in the F. I. R. He also relied on 1982 P. Cr. L J 30 and 1980 S C M R 889 and submitted that the doctor's opinion may be erroneous to the extent of 2 and 3 hours and not more. The learned counsel submitted that it appears that the occurrence relating to Faqir Muhammad was different and had taken place during the night preceding 17th October, 1981.

3. Mr. Bashirullah Khan, the learned Asstt. Advocate‑General, submitted that the petitioner has been directly charged in the F. I. R. and the eye‑witnesses named therein, including Faqir Muhammad, have charged the petitioner for effectively firing at Faqir Muhammad with the gun. In such circumstances, there is prima facie case against the peti tioner and he may not be released‑on bail.

4. Considering the entire material on the record, I think that a reasonable case is made out for further enquiry as to the time of inci dent in so far as Faqir Muhammad is concerned, on whom an injury of gun fire appeared.

5. Accepting this Application, I extend concession of bail to the petitioner on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the) Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate, who would see that the sureties are men of means.)

Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.