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 Petition No. 805-B of 1985, decided on 8th June, 1985.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--
---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34 & 201--Bail, refusal of---No direct evidence of crime available--Prosecution witnesses seeing accused persons tatting away dead body of deceased--Both accused making extra-judicial confessions about their having committed murder- Extra-judicial confession, was not the only evidence against accused- Accused were seen taking away dead body of deceased and incriminating articles were also recovered from both of them--Material collected by investigating agency, prima facie connected accused persons with crime with which they had been charged--Case not found .to be fit for bail--Bail refused.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioners.
Azmat Dad Khan for the State.
Date of hearing: 8th June, 1985.
Usman Ghani alias Shan and his son Abdul Bajid petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them under sections 302/34 and 201, P.P.C.
The F.I.R. version is that on 20-10-1984 shortly before morning prayer call Muhammad Ramzan and Nazar Muhammad saw the petitioners taking a bundle on a she-ass. On seeing the P.Ws., the petitioners started running back. The bundle fell down from the she-ass. It was found to contain the dead body of Muhammad Hanif with injuries on head and left eye. It is alleged that Usman Ghani petitioner and Muhammad Hanif deceased were joint owners of tit land. The deceased sold trees from the common land for Rs. 20,000 but did not pay anything to Usman Ghani petitioner, over which the petitioners got annoyed.
The evidence collected by the investigating agency consists of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner before Karim and Mst. Allah Rakhi, recovery of blood-stained Sots from Usman Ghani and blood-stained clothes from both the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no direct evidence of murder and the extra-judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the: concession of bail. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. According to the F.I.R., Muhammad Ramzan complainant and Nazar Muhammad P.W. had seen the petitioners taking away the dead body of the deco-aced on a she-ass. On seeing the P.Ws., both of them ran back. Later on, they made extra-judicial confession one after the other before Karim P.W. and Mst. Allah Rakhi, mother of the deceased, that they had killed the deceased as he did not pay the share of sale-proceeds of the trees sold from the common land. Karim and Allah Rakhi P.Ws. made their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. on the same day. It is true that extra-judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence but this is not the only evidence in this case. The petitioners were seen taking A away the dead body of the deceased on a she-ass and there is recovery of blood-stained Sota from Usman Ghani and blood stained clothes from both the petitioners. The material collected by the investing agency prima facie, connects the petitioners with the offence with which they have been charged. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that it is not a fit case for bail. The petition is dismissed.
H. A. K. Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer