Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1584-B of 1982, decided on 13th February, 1983.

-- S. 497-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/324/148/149 --Bail, grant of-Cross-cases registered against contending parties and accused in counter case under S. 307, P. P. C. already granted bail-Four persons on petitioners' side receiving as many as eleven injuries out of which two declared grievous and one dangerous to life-Petitioner allegedly caused a simple injury to deceased --Vicarious liability of petitioner, held, yet a matter of further inquiry-Bail allowed, in circumstances.

-- S. 497-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/324/l48/149 --Bail, grant of-Fatal injury attributed to petitioner in F. I. R. as well as in statements of eye-witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C.-Bail declined, in circumstances.

Muhammad Younas Bhatti for Petitioners.

Sh. Dilawar Hussain assisted by M. Sultan Alam for the State.

This is an application for bail on behalf of Abdul Hameed and Muhammad Hanif petitioners in a case under section 302/307/324/148/149, P. P. C. registered at P. S. Ludan, vide F. 1. R. No. 85, dated 29th May; 1982.

The prosecution case is that the petitioners and 5 others in fur therance of their common object launched murderous assault upon Sultan, Muhammad Shafiq, Abdul Salem and Abdul Ghafoor on 28th May, 1982 and thereby caused the death of Muhammad Sultan and injuries to others. As for the petitioners it has been alleged that Abdul Hameed, petitioner, caused Bang blows on the head, back and left eye of the deceased whereas Muhammad Hanif, petitioner, gave dang blows on the chin and chest of the deceased. Furthermore Abdul Hameed, petitioner, caused simple injuries to Muhammad Shafi, P. W.

3. It appears that both the sides received injuries during the -occur rence. On the side of the complainant Muhammad Sultan, deceased, received five injuries caused by blunt weapon, which have been specifically attributed to Abdul Hameed and Hanif, petitioners. Abdul Ghafoor, received as many as seven injuries out of which one was caused by sharp -edged weapon and the rest were with blunt weapon, all simple in nature having been attributed to Abdul Hameed co-accused. Muhammad Shafi, P. W. received seven injuries out of which one is by sharp-edged and the rest by blunt weapon. All simple in nature. The sharp-edged injury is attributed to Rashid co-accused and the rest to Muhammad Siddique co-accused.

Muhammad Islam, P. W. received six injuries, all simple in nature caused by blunt weapon and attributed to Khurshid and other co-accused.

On the side of the petitioners Abdul Majid received one injury caused by blunt weapon and simple in nature. Muhammad Siddique received three injuries with blunt weapon out of which two have been declared grievous. Wali Muhammad received three injuries, simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. Siraj received four injuries with blunt weapon out of which one has been declared grievous and the others dangerous to life.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are cross-cases and that the accused in the counter-cases are on bail.

As against this the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learn ed counsel far the complainant has opposed the plea for bail of the peti tioners on the ground that the injuries found on the person of the petitioners' party have been declared self-suffered.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that (i) there are cross-cases which after investigation have been presented before the Courts of competent jurisdiction; (ii) that four persons on the side of the petitioners received as many as 11 injuries out of which two have been declared grievous and one dangerous to life; (iii) that the accused in the counter-case under section 307/08/149, P. P. C. are on bail and (iv) that Muhammad Hand, petitioner, allegedly caused simply injury to the deceased.

5. For what has been stated above I am of the opinion that the question of the vicarious liability of Hanif, petitioner No. 2, requires further inquiry. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Vehari.

6. As for Abdul Hameed I find that a fatal injury has been attributed to him in the F. I. R. as well as in the statements of the eye-witnesses re corded under section 161, Cr. P, C. and as such he is not entitled to the concession of bail. To this extent the application is dismissed.

S. G. D. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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