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. 3146/13 of 1984, decided on 24th November,1984.
---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34--Bail, grant of--No direct evidence of murder--Accused not named in F.I.R.--Alleged extra judicial. confession made by accused persons being in nature of a joint statement, held, to be of no consequence--Witnesses of last seen making their statements before Investigating Officer nine days after disappearance of deceased--Witnesses belonging to brotherhood of deceased--Witnesses not informing brothers and other relatives of deceased that they had seen deceased in company of accused and their co-accused though said relatives of deceased were making hectic efforts to trace deceased---Case for enlargement of accused on bail was made out--Bail granted in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioners.
Shabbir Lali for the State.
Date of hearing: 24th November, 1984.
Muhammad Tufail and Bappha alias Arif petitioners are involved in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. They have made this petition for bail.
The case was registered on 16th July, 1984 on the report of Qasim Ali complainant wherein he alleged that nine days prior to the registration of the case Umar Din deceased was sleeping in his house at night. His son, aged 10/11 years, and daughter, aged 12/13 years, found that he was not on his cot and they searched for him for two/ three days. Thereafter, they informed the complainant and he alongwith Manda searched for the deceased but he could not be traced. On 16th July, 1984 at 12 noon he learnt that dogs and other wild animals were eating a dead body, upon which he rushed to that side ,y,; , f:ourid that it was the dead body of Umar Din deceased. In the i.l.R. Qutab Din and his son Sharif were named as suspects. The motive alleged in the F.I.R. was that the deceased had developed illicit relations with Mst. Aisha wife of Quta'b Din.
2. The learned, counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are not named -in the F.I.R., the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by them being a joint statement is inadmissible and the witnesses of last seen appeared before the police at a belated stage, therefore, the case of the petitioners needs further inquiry. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. There is no direct evidence of the murder. The petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. They are alleged to have made extra-judicial confession before Muhammad Aslam P.W. who stated that on 29th July, 1984 at 9-00 a.m. co-accused Inayat and the petitioners came to him and told him that they had committed the murder of Umar Din deceased. The alleged extra-judicial confession being in the nature of a joint statement, is of no consequence.
4. Naseer Din and Khushi Muhammad are witnesses of last seen. It is alleged that the deceased was last seen in the company of the petitioners and co--accused Inayat. The afore-mentioned witnesses made their statements before the Investigating Officer nine days after the disappearance of the deceased. They are from the brotherhood of the deceased. Prima facie, there is substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if they had actually seen the deceased in the company of the petitioners and their co-accused, they must have informed the brothers and other relatives of the deceased who were making hectic efforts to trace him. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that -i case for the enlargement of the petitioners is made out. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Okara.
H . A . K .
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer