Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2938/B of 1983, decided on 22nd January, 1984.

---S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307, 148 & 149‑‑Bail‑ Accused allegedly causing injuries with churri to deceased and named as such in first information report and also while in custody leading to recovery of churri from near his house‑‑Placing of accused's name in column No.2 of challan by police, held, not justified in circumstances‑ Bail refused.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 307, 148 & 149‑‑Bail‑‑Co accused not named in F.I.R. nor implicated in statement under 5.161, Cr. P.C. by. witnesses‑‑No recovery ascribed to co‑accused‑‑Case against such co‑accused, one of further inquiry‑‑Bail granted in circum stances.

Ch. Muhammad Din for Petitioners.

Muhammad Rafique for the State.

This is an application for post‑arrest bail on behalf of Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Hanif sons of Habib, petitioners in a case under sections 148, 302 and 307 read with section 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar, Kasur, on 26th of August, 1983, for the murder of Safdar and murderous assault on Shaukat.

2. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 26th of August, 1983, at 8.30 a.m. in a street outside Kot Fateh Baz Khan, Kasur. It was reported at Police Station Sadar, Kasur, about one mile away from the spot on the same date at 9.15 a.m by Barkat Ali who is father of the deceased as well as the injured. He alleged that about 9 or 1G years prior to the occurrence Asghar, brother of Ikram, one of the accused had abudcted his sister who was subsequently restored due to the intervention of a Panchayat and on this account Ikram accused etc. were nursing a grudge. On 26th of August, 1983 at about 7.30 a.m when the complainant was going in a bazar he came across Hanif petitioner who attacked him with a churri. He, however, warded off the attack, caught hold of the accused and wrested the churri from him. The inhabitants of the mohallah separated them. On the same day at about 8.30 a.m. Muhammad Hanif petitioner alongwith Ikram, Mapd, Rehmat, Hayat and another Hanif son of Abdul Haque armed with Churris and a Suaa formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object thereof Hanif petitioner and Ikram caused injuries to the deceased with their respective churris and Majid caused him injuries with his Suaa. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Rehmat co‑accused of the petitioner, is alleged to have caused injuries with his churri to Shaukat.

3. During the investigation of the case, some affidavits of the inhabitants of the locality were filed and mother of the petitioners made a statement on the basis whereof the police found Muhammad Hanif petitioner, Muhammad Hanif son of Abdul Haque, Majid son of Abdul Haque and Hayat .son of Khair Din as innocent and prepared a challan under sections 302 and 307, P.P.C. read with Section 34, P.P.C. agaisnt Muhammad Ikram son of Khushi Muhammad, Rehmat son of Habib and Muhammad Latif son of Habib. It may be pointed out that Muhammad Latif was not ominated in the F.I.R. It was on the basis of a statement by his mother during the investigation that he was substituted for Muhammad Hanif petitioner.

4. Bail of the petitioners is sought on the grounds that Muhammad Hanif son of Habib petitioner has been found as innocent by the police and Muhammad Latif son of Habib petitioner was not nominated in the F. I. R.

5. As regards Muhammad Hanif petitioner, he was alleged to have caused injuries with his churri to the deceased by the complainant in the F.I.R. as well as by the witnesses cited in the F. I. R in their statements under section 161, Cr. P. C. It is also in evidence that Muhammad Hanif petitioner while in custody led to the recovery of a churri from near his house in the presence of Muhammad Rashid and Muhammad Rafiq in view of this evidence, the action of the police in placing the name of Muhammad Hanif petitioner in column No.2 of the challan does not appear to be entirely justified. I, therefore, find not ground for admitting him to bail and dismiss this application qua him.

6. So far as Muhammad Latif petitioner is concerned, he was neither, named in the F.I.R. nor implicated by the witnesses mentioned in the) F.I.R. in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. No recovery is ascribed to him. He was substituted for Muhammad Hanif petitioner merely on the statement of his mother who is not one of the prosecution witnesses cited in the challan. In view of these facts, the case against Muhammad Latif petitioner is one which needs further inquiry. I, therefore, accept this application to his extent and release him on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Kasur.

M. Y. H. Application partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.