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 Bail Application No. 96 of 1985, decided on 6th February, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail grant of‑‑Three persons entering in house of complainant at night and one of them injuring complainant and murdering deceased with knife‑‑One accused not identified by complainant in identification parade as person concerned with said crime‑‑Another accused having been in custody for about six months but not paraded for identification‑‑No tangible evidence connecting accused with crime found .on record‑‑Reasonable grounds found to believe that accused were not concerned with a non‑bailable offence‑‑Case against accused, , held, required further inquiry‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.
Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Applicant.
Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, A.A.‑G. for the State.
On 11‑7‑1984 three persons had entered the house of complainant Nazir Ahmed at 1‑30 a.m. Nazir Ahmed woke up on seeing the light in the house and found three persons, one of whom was facing the complainant. He tried to grapple with him but that man stabbed Nazir Ahmed with knife and tried to run away. In the meanwhile Majid Ahmed, brother of complainant Nazir Ahmed, woke up and he also tried to catch hold of the man armed with the knife, but the latter stabbed Majid Ahmed also with the knife and ran away with the result that Majid died later in the hospital. The other two companions of the person who were armed with knife also ran away.
Report of this incident was lodged by complainant Nazir Ahmed at 10‑30 a.m. in the following morning. During investigation applicant Raza was arrested on 23‑7‑1984. He was paraded for identification before the complainant on 2‑8‑1984, but the complainant did not identify him as the person concerned with this crime.
Applicant Abdul Jabbar was arrested on 20‑8‑1984. Since then he is in custody, but he has not been paraded for identification. Hence so far there is no tangible evidence connecting the applicants with this crime. It can, therefore, be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are not concerned with non‑bailable offence, but the case against them required further inquiry.
Both the applicants shall be released on furnishing sureties in the amount of Rs.20,000 and P.R. in like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.
H.A.K. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer