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. 330 of 1985, decided on 10th March, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Applicants attributed role of having seized deceased while co‑accused giving Chhuri injury to him, during a sudden fight‑‑Applicants admitted to bail in circumstances.
Anwar Khan v. Muhammad Yousuf etc. N L R 1979 Criminal (SC) 939 and Mir Ali Khan and another v. State Cr.P.S.L.A. No. 81‑K of 1984 ref.
Sarfaraz Khan Tanoli for Applicants.
Hassan Akbar A.A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 10th March, 1985.
The two applicants Ali Asghar and Aslam alongwith co‑accused Akram are facing trial for the murder of one Ameer Khan. As disclosed in the F.I.R. quarrel broke out between the deceased and the accused over water tap and thereupon the applicants seized the deceased while Akram stabbed him with "Chhuri".
The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since it was a case of sudden fight the accused would be liable for their individual acts. His further contention was that even otherwise the only role assigned to the applicants was that they had only seized the deceased. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on Anwar Khan v. Muhammad Yousuf etc. NLR 1979 Criminal (S C) 939. In that case too the applicants were alleged to have only caught hold of the deceased and the fatal blows with "Chhuri" were attributed to other accused. The High Court refused to cancel the bail of the applicants and the Supreme Court in appeal declined to interfere.
Another authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mir At Khan and another v. The State and another (Cr. P.S.L.A. No. 81‑K of 1984), decided on 21‑2‑1985. In this case also the Supreme Court in more or less similar circumstances allowed bail to the accused who had only caught hold of the deceased in the sudden fight.
In the instant case no doubt, the fight had flared up all of a sudden. The element of premeditation was entirely missing. The only part played by the applicants was that they had held the deceased while the co‑accused inflicted Chhuri injury to him. The above authorities support the applicants. The learned A.A.‑G. has no objection to grant of bail to the applicants. Accordingly bail is allowed to the applicants in the sum of Rs. 20,000 each and P. R. of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
S. G. D. Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer