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. 2040‑B of 1984, decided on 6th August, 1984.
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.328‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioners allegedly administering poison to complainant on pretext of some medicine but such poison not recovered from petitioners‑‑Nature of poison yet to be determined after trial of petitioners‑‑Held: A case of further inquiry, in circumstances‑‑Petitioners allowed bail
Ghulam Rasool Chaudhry for Petitioners.
Shabbir Lali for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th August, 1984.
On 10‑6‑1984, Gulzar Hussain reported that he was running the tonga of Ghazanfar Ali but then gave up his job and started plying for someone else. On 9‑6‑1984 at about 8 p.m., he alongwith Ghazanfar Ali (petitioner) was sitting at the latter's Dera. Muhammad Ali and Sardar Muhammad were also present there. It is stated by him that he complained to Ghazanfar Ali that he had some trouble in passing urine. At this Ghazanfar Ali asked Mian Muhammad Akram (petitioner) to bring medicine lying in two small packets from inside the Almirah which he did. The medicine was taken by Gulzar Hussain at the instance of Ghazanfar Ali who assured him that he will get relief in a short while. Thereafter, Gulzar Hussain complainant went to Khokhar Town. There he started feeling uneasy as a result of which his brother, Sardar Muhammad, got him admitted in Mayo Hospital, Lahore. He remained unconscious during the night. Next morning, he came to know that he had been given some poison by the accused. The present case was registered on the statement of Gulzar Hussain and the two petitioners were arrested.
2. In support of this petition, it is contended by the learned counsel that no sample from the medicine alleged to have been administered to the complainant was taken by the police during investigation and, as such, it could not be said that the medicine administered to the comp lainant was a poison. It is further contended that admittedly before administering the medicine Ghazanfar Ali himself did not see the same, nor is there any indication that Muhammad Akram petitioner also knew as to what was lying in those small packets. It is, therefore, argued that the case of the present petitioners is that of further inquiry.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition and produced a copy of the report of the Chemical Examiner which indicates that the stomach wash contained copper sulphate and the urine also contained blood and copper. It is, therefore, contended that it is not a case of further inquiry.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I find that the nature of the poison will be determined after the trial of the A accused, and the absence of any recovery from the petitioners makes out a case of further inquiry against them. The interim bail allowed to them by order dated 25‑7‑1984 of this Court is therefore confirmed.
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