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.2237/B of 1984, decided on 18th September, 1984.
---S. 497-- Penal Code (XLV of 1898), S. 302/307/148/149---No injury to deceased or witness attributed to two of accused--No direct motive established against such accused--Only Lalkara attributed--Case of accused distinguishable from others--Bail granted.
M. Hanif Khatana for Petitioners.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad with Amjad Khan for Respondent.
Hanif Zahid for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th September, 1984.
The petitioners who stand arraigned alongwith 5 others for the murder of Unsar deceased and for murderously assaulting Boota Khan P.W. on 5-5-1984 have applied for bail after remaining unsuccessful in the Sessions Court, Sialkot.
2. The prosecution case is that Maqsood Khan a close relative of the petitioners excepting Ashraf Khan had been arrested in a murder case and a gun had been recovered from him. Asghar Khan complainant of this case was the recovery witness against Maqsood Khan. Manzoor Khan and Maqbool Khan co-accused who are relatives of Maqsood Khan asked the complainant to refrain from deposing against Maqsood Khan which led to a physical altercation between them. However, Asghar Khan managed to escape and returned to his house where the petitioners and their co-accused while armed with fire-arms, hatchet and Dangs came and opened fire, as a result of which Unsar Khan a real brother of Asghar Khan complainant was fatally injured. Boota Khan another brother of the complainant also suffered fire-arm, injuries at the hands of the companions of the petitioners.
3. Bail is urged on the ground that the complainant party is guilty of aggression in that, they caused injuries to Unsar Khan petitioner and further that no injury whatsoever is attributed to the petitioners. According to him the deceased and Boota Khan suffered fire-arms injuries while the petitioners were allegedly armed with a hatchet and, Dangs. According to him the only role attributed to them is of raising Lalkaras.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail. According to him Siddique petitioner had a motive because Maqsood Khan who had been challaned in the case referred to above is his real nephew and his son Manzoor to whom a fatal injury is attributed is still at large.
The bail to Unsar Khan is opposed on the, ground that he received injuries during the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is no mention at all of his injuries in the F.I.R.
The bail of Ashraf Khan is opposed on the ground that he is closely related to other accused particularly' Sharif. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Unsar Khan and Ashraf Khan had no direct motive against the deceased and are not alleged to have played any specific part in the occurrence excepting raising Lalkara.
5. Since no injury to the deceased or to Boota Khan P.W. is attributed to them and nor are they said to have any direct motive against the deceased or the complainant, I consider their case distinguishable from Siddique petitioner and accordingly I admit Unsar Khan and Ashraf Khan petitioners to bail in the stem of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Shakargarh.
6. However, Siddique petitioner is considered not entitled to bail at his stage because of his close relationship with Maqsood Khan who had been challaned in a Murder case and for whom pressure was being exterted on the complainant to resile from his evidence. His application is therefore, dismissed.
S. A. Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer