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. 531-B of 1984, decided on 17th March, 1984.
---S. 497/498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/326/148/149--Bail grant of--Question as to who was in possession of property over which dispute arose and which of parties were aggressor, yet to be determined after recording evidence--Case being of further inquiry, bail granted.
Jari Ullah Khan for Petitioners.
Bashir Ahmad Mujahid for the Complainant.
Muhammad Din Chaudhry for the State.
Date of hearing: 17th March, 1984.
Muhammad Sadiq, Taj Din Ghulam Murtaza and Haq Nawaz have filed this petition for bail. They have been prosecuted alongwith Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Majid accused in a case under section 307/326/148/149, P.P.C.
2. The facts of the case are that Mukhtar Ahmad complainant and his brother Muhammad Hussain had purchased 22 Kanals of land from one Ali Muhammad. It is stated in F. I. R. that after the sale they entered in possession of the said property which was in the possession of Muhammad Sadiq accused (petitioner) etc., as tenants. It is alleged that on 29th December, 1983, Mukhtar Ahmad, Shahid lqbal, Javid lqbal, Fazal Muhammad, Mst. Jameela Bibi and Mst. Amna Bibi were working in the field when Muhammad Sadiq armed with hatchet, Haq Nawaz armed with hatchet while Taj Din and Ghulam Muhammad armed with sticks alongwith other two accused came there. They challenged and inflicted injuries to them. Javid lqbal received blunt weapon injuries which were of simple nature. Shahid Iqbal received one grievous injury by blunt weapon. Mst. Jameela Bibi received two injuries, one by sharp-edged weapon and one of simple nature. Mst. Amna Bibi received five injuries, one by sharp edged weapon and of grievous nature while four were by blunt weapon and of simple nature. Fazal Muhammad and Mukhtar Ahmad received three injuries each by blunt weapon and of simple nature. The motive was stated to be that Mukhtar Ahmad etc, had purchased the said land against the wishes of Muhammad Sadiq accused etc.
3. After registration of the case the police undertook investigation and challan has since been filed.
4. The accused applied for bail to the learned Sessions Judge, Faisal abad. Three accused Muhammad Ashraf, Abdul Majeed and Abdul Ghani were allowed bail but the plea of bail of the present petitioners did not find favour of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence this petition.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that two of accused Taj Din and Muhammad Sadiq also received injuries out of which injury on the finger of Taj Din was of grievous nature. These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. Secondly, it is submitted that the police has filed a cross-challan against Mukhtar Ahmad etc., under section 325/148/149, P.P.C. It is lastly submitted that Muhammad Sadiq etc., petitioners were admittedly in possession of the property in question and they had acted in their right of private defence.
6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned counsel for the State. I am of the view that it is a case of further inquiry. It will be determined after recording of evidence during the trial as to who was in possession of the property and which of the two parties was aggressor. In this view of the matter I allow bail to all the four petitioners on their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum o Rs.20,000 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction o the Assistant Commissioner Faisalabad.
M. Y. H. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer