Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No.1109 of 1984, decided on 25th November, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑Bail‑‑Accused allegedly armed with hatchet but no overt act attributed to him‑‑Bail allowed.

‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑Bail‑‑Allegation against accused is that of ineffective firing‑‑Allegation against accused is of general nature and it is nowhere stated that accused fired at deceased‑‑Deceased stating in police statement that he sustained injuries at hands of co‑accused (not applying for bail)‑‑No crime weapon recovered from accused‑‑Bail granted.

Muhammad Nazir v. The State 1984 S C M R 206 and Wilayat and others v. The State 1984 S C M R 530 ref.

Allahdino G. Memon for Applicants.

M.I. Memon, Addl. A.‑G for the State.

This is an application for a bail in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. and 13‑D Arms Act, pending for trial in the Court of Sessions Judge,, Nawabshah.

Brief facts of the prosecution case as narrated in F.I.R. are that on 15‑9‑1984 complainant Ghulam Hussain Lakhmir and Babu Zardari went to village Lundo and after finishing their work they left for their village. At 7 p.m. when they reached village Ahmed Zardar and were at the distance of one furlong from the land of Sain Bux Bahar there appeared three persons namely Sarang, Wadho with guns and Achar with hatchet from the Juwar crop and they challenged complainant party thereafter Sarang fired direct shot at Lakhmir which hit him and he fell down. On cries there came Bahadur, Idris and other villagers. Lakhmir was brought to Hospital Moro. Ghulam Hussain went and lodged report.

Mr. Allahdino Memon, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that according to F.I.R. Achar was armed with hatchet but no overt act is attributed to him. He has argued that allegation against Wadhayo is that his fire did not hit anybody and there is general allegation against him.

Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, learned Addl. Advocate‑General has no objection if interim bail granted to Achar is confirmed but he has opposed the application of Wadhayo and stated that there is specific allegation that he fired shot and case for vicarious liability is made out.

Applicant Achar was granted interim bail on 11‑11‑1984. His bail is confirmed for the reasons already recorded on the same terms and conditions.

It is admitted position that deceased Lakhmir died due to injury caused by accused Sarang. The case under section 307/34, P.P.C. was registered and Lakhmir died on 8‑10‑1984 i.e. after 23 days. The allegation in F.I.R. is that some persons came on cries and after that accused fired 2/3 shots which missed. The allegation is of general nature against both the accused and it is nowhere stated that applicant fired at deceased Lakhmir. It has been pointed out that Lakhmir in his police statement also stated that he sustained injuries at the hands of Sarang.

In a case of Muhammad Nazir v. The State, reported in 1984 SCMR 206, the accused was admitted to bail on the ground that no blow was attributed to accused causing death of deceased. A reference has been made to a case of Wilayat and others v. The State reported in 1984 S C M R 530 and in that case allegation against accused was that he caused simple injury to deceased. In spite of that bail was granted. At this stage the allegation against the applicant is that of ineffective firing and no crime weapon has been recovered from him. I consider this is a fit case for bail. Applicant Wadhyo is admitted to bail on furnishing one solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Nawabshah.

M.A.K.

Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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