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. 1326-B of 1983, decided on 11th July, 1983.
---S. 497-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148-Bail, grant of-- [Murder case]-During occurrence four members of accused party also receiving injuries, three of which caused on head-F. I. R. lodged with unexplained delay of 22 hours-Deceased struck only once-Occurrence also a sudden affair and complainant party suppressing its own role in it-Occurrence a sequel to a dispute over land and possibility that at relevant time accused party was in possession of land in dispute, not ruled out-Bail allowed, in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Mahmood for Petitioner.
Jamal Din for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th July, 1983.
The petitioner in this bail application has been arrested in a case registered on 19.6-1982 under sections 148, 302 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. 'The allegations against him are that he together with five other persons attacked the complainant party and caused injuries to Muhammad Afzal, Abdul Qayyum and Perwaiz. Subsequently Afzal died as a result of the injuries received by him. The fatal blow to the deceased was ascribed to the petitioner.
2. It may be mentioned that two of the co-accused, namely, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Ahmad were earlier released on bail by my order, dated 2-2-1983.
3. According to the version given in the F. I. R. the attack on the complainant party was a sequel to a dispute over land. Admittedly at the time of the occurrence the complainant-party was ploughing the disputed land. When the petitioner and his companions attempted to stop the complainant-party from ploughing the land there was an alterca tion between the parties. The altercation assumed serious dimensions and led of an attack by the petitioner and his companions upon com plainant-party.
4. It is not clear which of the two parties was in actual possession of the land in dispute at the relevant time. It does appear from the F. I. R., that some time earlier the accused-party was cultivating it. It will be a serious question for consideration at the trial whether the accused party had voluntarily handed over the possession to the complainant-party before the occurrence. As mentioned in my order of 2-2-1983, two apparently carefully revisions appear.
5. During the course of occurrence four members of the accused party also received injuries. Three of them were found to be bearing injuries on their heads. In the F. I. R. there is no mention whatsoever how the accused-party received their injuries.
6. Although the occurrence took place, on 18-6-1982 at about 4-00 p.m. the matter was not reported to the Police till 2-00 p. m. on the following day. The police station was only at a distance of six miles from the place of occurrence.
7. I have seen the post-mortem report of the deceased. Although the report indicates that the deceased had three injuries on his person but two of them appear to be consequential upon the head injury. Thus, prima facie it seems that the deceased was struck only once.
8. Summing up I find that the occurrence was a sequel to a dispute over land, there is a possibility that at the relevant time the accused party was in possession of the land in dispute, the occurrence was a sudden affair, the complainant-party had suppressed its own role in the occurrence and that the deceased was struck only once In the circumstances I am not sure if at this stage I can hold that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment, for life or imprisonment for a period which may extend to ten years. I would accordingly, enlarge him on bail on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala.
S. G. D Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer