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. 2963/B of 1984, decided on 1st December, 1984.
‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑Bail‑‑Application for cancellation‑‑Order of Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to accused neither illegal nor perverse‑‑Application for cancellation of bail dismissed.
Muhammad Nasarullah Waraich for Petitioner.
Naveed Shaharyar for Respondent No.2.
Sh. Ihsan Ahmad for the State.
This is a petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. by Rehmat Khan, petitioner, for the cancellation of bail granted to Muhammad Azeem, respondent No.2, by an Additional Sessions Judge of Gujrat on 13‑10‑1984.
2. According to the F.I.R. lodged on 26‑6‑1984, Zakir, co‑accused, inflicted a Chhuri injury in the chest of Javed Iqbal, deceased, after Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Azim, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, engaged him in conversation. According to a later supplementary statement of the complainant, stated to have been recorded immediately after the F. I. R., it is alleged that Abdul Ghafoor, respondent No. 1. first clasped the deceased in his Japha, whereafter Muhammad Azeem respondent No.2, gave the deceased a Sota blow on his head and that notwithstanding the intervention of the complainant, Zakir, co‑accused, inflicted a Chhuri blow on the chest of the deceased.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel of the petitioner, Muhammad Azim, respondent No.2, and the State and have also perused the police file. It appears that in the F.I.R. and the inquest report there is reference of only one injury on the chest. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after the post mortem report was received on 27‑6‑1984, which showed that there were two injuries on the body of the deceased i.e. one on the chest and the other on the head. It is, therefore, submitted that the supplementary statement was recorded on or after 27‑6‑1984, though it was predated to 26‑6‑1984. Without giving any finding or making any observation as regards when the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded, I would only say, for the limited purpose: of this petition, that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the circumstances does not appear to be either illegal or perverse:
4. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.
M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer