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. 455/B of 1983, decided on 16th May, 1983.
--Ss. 497 & 498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148 & 302/149-Bail --Mere delay in lodging First Information Report per se not sufficient for grant of bail.-[Delay -First Information Report).
---Ss. 497 & 498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148 & 302/149 -Bail, grant of--Finding of Investigating Officer that accused was innocent, held, although relevant but not binding.
-- S. 497/498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148 & 302/149--Bail, grant of-Accused named in First Information Report and a specific role attributed to him-- Accused alleged to have fired a shot on deceased hitting him on shoulder and challaned alongwith other accused-Bail refused.
Muhammad Hussain Malik for Petitioner.
Ghulam Nabi Bhatti for the Complainant.
Muhammad Iqbal for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th May, 1983.
Shahamand petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 148 and 302/149, P. P. C. The allegations are that on 20th June, 1982 at 7 p. m. Muhammad Sharif deceased and his wife Mst. Rashida were present at a bus-stand on Multan Road, Lahore, in order to see off Muhammad Nazir P. W. who had to board a bus for his village. The petitioner and his co-accused Niamat armed with -12 bore pistols and Shaukat. Arshad and Rehmat Ali armed with khaniars who were present at the petrol pump, raised lalkaras, hurled filthy abuses and Niamat fired a shot at Muhammad Nazir hitting his right chin. Shahamand petitioner also fired a shot but it missed. Muhammad Nazir hurriedly got into the bus while Muhammad Sharif deceased and Mst. Rashida ran towards their house. They were chased by all the accused and when they reached near their house, Shahamand fired a shot hitting Muhammad Sharif on the left shoulder, as a result of which he fell to the ground. Then co-accused Niamat fired a shot hitting his left arm and armpit. He was taken to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where he succumbed to his injuries soon after.
The motive for the offence was that eleven days prior to the occurrence co-accused Niamat enticed away Mst. Hamida, daughter of Ali Muhammad complainant. He kept her with him for eight days and three days prior to the occurrence left her at Pattoki Adda. Later on she told her relatives that Niamat had forcibly removed her ornaments. The complainant asked Niamat and his relatives for returning the ornaments but they declined, as a result of which the relations between the parties got strained.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F. I. R. was lodged 41 hours after the occurrence and this delay has not been explained. It is further submitted that the petitioner was declared innocent by two investigating agencies and he has been falsely implicated due to his relation ship with co-accused Niamat.
The learned counsel for the complainant and the State, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner has been named in the F. I. R. a specific role has been attributed to him and he has been challaned along with the other accused, therefore, no ground for bail is made out.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. The occurrence took place at 7 p. m. and the statement of the complainant, which forms the basis of formal F. I. R. was recorded in Mayo Hospital at 11-30 p. m. After the occurrence, the deceased was carried to Mayo Hospital. The complainant himself bad suffered a fire-arm injury, therefore, he was not' expected to rush to the police station soon after the occurrence. In any case, the mere delay is not per se sufficient for the grant of bail. The peti tioner was found innocent during the investigation by the A. S. P. The record, however, shows that be arrived at this finding in view of the state ments made by six persons. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant, that all of them belong to the bradari of the petitioner, find support from the record. The finding of the investigating officer is relevant but not binding. The petitioner is named in the F. I. R. and a specific role has been attributed to him. He is alleged to have fired a shot on the deceased hitting his left shoulder and he has been challaned alongwith other accused. In the circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for the grant of bail. The petition is dismissed.
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