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.2639‑B of 1984, decided on 13th October, 1984.
---S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/149 &148‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Ocular account not in conformity with medical evidence and question of vicarious liability requiring further inquiry‑‑Petitioners allowed bail, in circumstances.
Ehsan Qadir Shah for Petitioners.
Abdul Fateh for the State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Naseer Mehdi and Masti Khan petitioner in case under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Katha Saghral vide F.I.R.No.40 dated 7‑7‑1984.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and four others in furtherance of their common object caused death of Muhammad Akram deceased. As for the petitioners, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that they were armed with hatchets and thereby caused injuries on the person of the deceased.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Naseer Mehdi petitioner No.l has been found innocent by the police and that the part attributed to the petitioners that they caused two injuries with the blunt side of the hatchets on the ribs of the deceased stands belied by the post‑mortem report. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed the plea for the bail of the petitioners on the ground that the provisions of section 149, P.P.C. are attracted to their case:
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that according to the F.I.R. as well as the statements made by the eye‑witnesses the petitioners were armed with hatchets and they had caused injuries on the person of the deceased with wrong sides of hatchets whereas according to the post‑mortem report, all the injuries found on his person were caused by the fire‑arm. It is thus very much obvious that the ocular account is not in conformity with the medical evidence.
5. Without making any expression of opinion last it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the view that the question of the vicarious liability of the petitioners requires further enquiry. They are, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commis sioner/Duty Magistrate, Khushab.
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