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. 75-B of 1984, decided on 3rd March, 1984.
---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/148/149--Bail--Accused causing death of deceased by firing on him with their guns--Fact that a cross-complaint had been lodged against accused wherein accused had been summoned and bailed out not making out a case for grant of bail to present main accused--Bail refused.
S. Mazhar Hussain Bokhary for the State.
Ch. Pervaiz Aftab for the Complainant.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Ejaz and Allah Bukhsh, the petitioners in case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Talumba vide F.I.R. No.80/1983, dated 16-5-1983.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners alongwith 4 others in furtherance of their common object variously armed launched murderous assault on Sultan, Mst. Sakina and Allah Yar and thereby caused the death of Sultan and injuries to Mat. Sakina and Allah Yar P. Ws. As for the petitioners, it has been alleged that they were armed with 12 bore guns and fired on Sultan causing injuries resulting in his death.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are' cross cases and it is yet to be decided as to who was aggressor; that the injuries found on the person of the co-accused were suppressed in the F.I.R. that in the cross-complainant lodged by the petitioners side against the complainant party of this case, the accused therein have been summoned under section 307/325/447/149, P.P.C. and that the accused in the cross complaint are on bail. As against this, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application.
4. After hearing the learned counsel I find that the petitioners have allegedly caused the death of Sultan by firing on him with their guns and as such they are the main accused. The four co-accused who were vicariously liable for the act of the petitioners have already beers allowed bail by this Court. In the circumstances of the case, the facts that a cross complaint has been lodged against the petitioners wherein the accused have been summoned and bailed out does not make out a case for the grant of bail to the main accused.
For what has been stated above, without making any expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of bail to the petitioners.
M. Y. H. Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer