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. 133 of 1982, decided on 30th May, 1982.
-- S. 497/498 read with Islamic Tazeerati Act, 1974, S. 14/15 Bail-Trial of case unwarrantedly delayed and not commencing in spite of having been brought before Court a month earlier Grievous injury caused to victim of offence attributed to an accused already enlarged by Police on bail-No evidence to show who caused such injury although police attributing same to accused already enlarged on bail-Fire arms not recovered by police and no evidence existing in support of F.I.R. in relation to firing-Grant of bail to accused applicants, held, proper in circumstances of case. [Delay].
Garman and another v. The State 1982 S C M R 87 and Muhammad Shafiq and another v. The State 1982 S C M R 384 distinguished.
Ch. Muhammad Taj for Applicants.
Rafique Mahmood Khan, Additional A.-G. for the State.
The applicants are involved in a case registered under section 14/15 of the Islami Tazeerati Act read with sections 307/147, 148/149-A, P. C. by the Police Bhimber. There were three other co-accused who were mentioned in the First Information Report, as co-accused out of whom two, namely Muhammad Ashraf and Abbas were entered in column-11 of the challan report indicating the application of section 169, Cr. P. C. therein.
After presentation of the challan, the applicants including one War Iqbal one of the accused moved an application for bail before the trial Court. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of the parties released Zafar Iqbal accused on bail but it was refused to the applicants vide order dated 12th May, 1982 of the District Criminal Court.. The challan against the accused was presented in the trial Court on 29th April, 1982, but no copies of the statements of the witnesses were furnished by the prosecution to the accused and the case was' postponed to 5th May, 1982 without taking any* useful proceedings so as to further the progress of the case.
On 5th May, 1982, it was stated by the Public Prosecutor that the copies of the statements under section 161, Cr. P. C. recorded by the police were not prepared and so the case again was adjourned to 17th May, 1982 for delivery of the said copies to the accused. But when the case was called on 17th May, 1982 for handing over the copies of the statements of the witnesses, no copies as ordered by the trial Court were furnished to the accused and the case was again adjourned to 31st May, 1982 for the purpose of handing over of copies to the accused. This very fact that the copies of the statements have not been furnished to the accused for over a period of one month and still it is to be done by the prosecution on 31st May, 1982 and I am afraid that may not be done even on this date. The statements of the accused have also not been recorded under section 242, Cr. P. C. by the trial Court so far, which, of course, could conveni ently be taken to make a progress in the trial. The Court could have done the compliance of its order in delivery of the copies to the accused within a very short time to be reasonable but it was not done so caring little and the accused who were behind the bars, were kept as such without any ray of hope to them for their trial to commence soon. Shah Muhammad and Ghazanfar were arrested on 26th February, 1982 and others on 20th April, 1982.
Evidently, the trial of the case was unwarrantedly delayed and it has not yet been commenced even despite the fact that the case was brought before the Court since a month.
Injury No. 1 was attributed to Muhammad Ashraf accused who was enlarged by the police under section 169, Cr. P. C. and this is a grevious injury and there is no evidence on record to show as to whom else this injury was attributed, though in the police report it is attributed without any evidence to Zafar lqbal who was also released on bail by the trial Court.
The reports of fire-arms which were allegedly attributed to Ghazanfar, Abbas, Muhammad Azam and Tufail in order to kill the complainant were missed though aimed at him and those firearms, if any, were not even recovered by the police and there is no witness to support the F. I. R. in relation to these reports of fires in the manner they were ascribed to the aforesaid accused. It was simply stated by the ocular witnesses except the complainant before the police that two persons namely Ghazanfar and Iqbal fired in the air by which they mean to say that no fire by these accused was aimed at in the manner as alleged in the first information report.
In the above circumstances, there is no need to refer to the authorities namely Gaman and another v. The State (1982 S C M R 87) and Muhammad Shafiq and-another v. The State etc. (1982 9 C M R 384) cited by the learned Additional Advocate-General as the circumstances of those cases referred to differ from the circumstances of the present case.
That being so, it will be proper that the applicants-accused are also granted bail who shall furnish bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
A copy of this order shall be -sent to the District Criminal Court for information of the accused applicants so as to be enlarged on bail as ordered by this Court.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer