Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1538/8 of 1983, decided on-5th July, 1983.

---S. 497/498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/148/149--Bail--Accused armed with deadly weapon, using same effectively by firing on vital organ of injured prosecution witness and even after injuring him continued firing--Bail refused.

---S.497/498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/148/149--Bail--Mere fact that accused remained in jail for seven months, held, no ground to grant concession of bail if statutory period not yet passed.

1973 P Cr. L J 125 ref.

Khuda Dad Burki for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ashraf for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No. 320/82, Police Station Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh under section 307/148/149, .P.P.C.

2. According to the first information report Abdul Ghaffar and Arshad co-accused of the petitioner exchanged abuses and grappled win or other, of the complainant and also gave beating to Muhammad Aslam, his brother. His brothers returned home and informed the complainant. On the same day at about 8 a.m. when the complainant was present in the bazar in front of his Baithak alongwith Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Afzal his brothers and Muhammad Amin his father, Nazir Ahmad petitioner armed with a gun, his co-accused Shamsul Haq, Muhammad Irshad and Abdul Chaffar armed with carbines, Pir Bakhsh and Arshad armed with hatchets came from the side of Chowk Masjid raising Lalkaras. Mukhtar Ahmad a cousin of the complainant and Din Muhammad his uncle, also reached the spot hearing noise. When Mukhtar Ahmad tried to intervene and stop the accused on the Lalkara raised by Pir Bakhsh, the petitioner fired a gunshot which hit Mukhtar Ahmad on the flank, second shot was fired by Abdul Ghaffar accused which hit Mukhtar Ahmad on the back. Shamsul Haq accused also fired a shot from his carbine as a result of which Din Muhammad P.W. received injuries. When father of the complainant went forward, Arshad accused gave him blows with wrong side of the hatchet. Petitioner Nazir Ahmad etc. fired some more shots at .the complainant and his brothers but they escaped. The occurrence was seen by Allah Rakha and Muhammad Akram.

3. Motive for the occurrence was that 4 months prior to the occurrence Muhammad Ashraf a brother of the complainant had injured Rashid, a brother of the petitioner in which five persons of the complainant party were challaned. According to the complainant, the petitioner and others had attacked the complainant party to avenge the earlier incident.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner ;z; in jail for the last about 7 months, that the enmity is admitted and that the prosecution failed to give any explanation regarding the injuries suffered by Abdul Ghaffar co-accused of the petitioner. It is contended that the injuries in fact were concealed and no mention of the same was made. It is submitted that in view of the above, a case of further enquiry is made out. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State 1973 P Cr. L J 125.

5. Learned counsel for the State has controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has contended that except the previous occurrence no other enmity has been suggested and that in fact the same was the motive for the occurrence. He has argued that Mukhtar has suffered a grievous injury at the hands of the petitioner and the intention for committing offence under section 307, P.P.C. is obvious.

6. I have gone through the first information report, the medico-legal certificate and have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is a fact that nothing is mentioned regarding injuries of Abdul Ghaffar co-accused of the petitioner in the first information report but it is not known as to whether any explanation was given thereafter or not The injuries suffered by Abdul Ghaffar are contusions and lacera tions excepting one which is an incised injury of minor dimensions, i.e. 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep, and that too was on a non-vital part i.e. little finger. It will have to be seen at the trial whether these injuries were suffered during the occurrence The petitioner was armed; with a deadly weapon and he has used it effectively by firing at a vital, organ of the injured P.W. Even after having injured Mukhtar Ahmad P.W, he continued firing. Mere fact of the petitioner having been in jail for the last about 7 months is no ground to grant him the concession of a bail as the statutory period has not yet passed. The facts of the authority cited are different from that of the present case.

For the present, no case for bail is made out. The petition stands dismissed.

M.Y.H. Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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