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. 1923/B of 1982, decided on 4th August_, 1982.
---- Ss. 497, 498 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109, 148 & 149-Bail-Petitioner 85 years old--No injury attributed to peti tioner-Bail allowed.
M. Farani, Bar-at-Law for Petitioners.
Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for the State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Buddha Manais and Wazir in a case under sections 302, 109, 148, 149, P. P. C. registered at P. S. Chunian, vide F. I. R. No. 253 dated 10th September, 1981.
2. The prosecution case is that on 10th September, 1981, Buddha Manais petitioner No. 1 went to the house of Siraj Din and others and met Asghar Ali and Barkat Ali and told them that since Siraj Din was proceeding for Haj, it would be proper to settle the dispute pending between Muhammad Akram and Siraj Din and others pertaining to a case under section 307, P. P. C. registered 11 months before the occurrence. Siraj Din was, however, not available on that date; therefore on the next day, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 approached Siraj Din and also desired compro mise. Siraj Din agreed and in order to effect compromise, the petitioners alongwith Siraj Din and sons wept to the house of Ghulam Qadir where co-accused Ghulam Rasul and 3 others were present under a tree. The matter was discussed between the parties. Ghulam Rasul co- accused embraced Siraj Din and his son Muhammad Asghar. It so happened that after few minutes, Hakim, Ghulam Rasul, Ashraf and Mukhtar variously armed emerged from a house and attacked Siraj Din and his companions. It is alleged that at that time, the petitioners raised lalkaras that Muhammad Boota be not spared. It has been alleged that as a result of the attack three persons Siraj Din, Asghar and Boota lost their lives.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner No. 1 is an old man of 85 years and as such an infirm person; the peti tioners did not cause any injury to the deceased and they have been involved on account of suspicion whereas they had sincerely tried to effect compro mise between the parties.
Learned counsel for the State has seriously opposed this application on the ground that bail has already been refused to Wazir petitioner No. 2 by this Court and no fresh ground has arisen for grant of bail in due course of events.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners I find that the earlier bail petition of Wazir, i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 962/B/ 82 was dismissed by this Court on 19th May, 1982 and no fresh ground has arisen in due course of events to entitle him to the concession of bail.
As for Buddah Manais petitioner No. 1, 1 find that the submission of the learned counsel that he is 85 years old has not been contro verted by learned counsel for the State. Furthermore, he did not cause any injury to anyone. It is for these two reasons that I am inclined to allow bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with one surety in the like amount- to the satisfaction of A: C., Kasur.
M. A. K. Bail granted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer