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. 2629‑B of 1984, decided on 10th October, 1984.
---S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307‑‑Bail, grant of‑--No injury to deceased attributed to petitioners who allegedly caused injuries to prosecution witnesses, all simple in nature, except a grievous injury on hand of a witness, a non‑vital part‑‑Persons on both sides receiving injuries‑‑Two persons on accused‑side also suffering injuries, including a grievous injury due to fracture of clavicle bone and a sharp‑edged weapon injury‑‑Question whether principle of vicarious liability attracted or not yet to be determined by trial Court‑‑A case for enlargement of petitioners, held, made out in circumstances‑‑Bail allowed in circum stances.
M. Anwar Bhaur for Petitioners.
Muhammad Iqbal for the Complainant.
S.D. Hashmi for the State.
Mukhtar, Mahna and Wali Muhammad alongwith others are involved in a case under sections 148, 302 and 307/149, P.P.C. They have moved this petition for bail.
The F.I.R. version is that on 6th July, 1984 at 8/9 a.m. the petitioners and their co‑accused attacked the members of the complainant party causing injuries to Rafiq, Allah Ditta, Shafiq, Abdul Ghaffar P.Ws. and Ali Ahmad who subsequently died in the hospital on 11th July, 1984. The part attributed to Mukhtar petitioner is that he caused injuries to Rafiq and Allah Ditta P.Ws. Mahna and Wali Muhammad petitioners are alleged to have caused injuries to Abdul Ghaffar, and Mahna petitioner is further alleged to have caused injuries to Rafiq P. W.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that during the occurrence two persons on the accused side, namely, Yaqub and Abdul Sattar, also suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant party and the petitioners are not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased, therefore, they are entitled to the concession of bail. The learned counsel for the complainant and the State, on the other hand, submit that the petitioners have been attributed a specific role and the allegations prima facie show that all the accused had acted in a pre‑concert, therefore, the principle of vicarious liability is attracted.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. No injury to the deceased has been attributed to the petitioners. They are alleged to have caused injuries to the P.Ws. Allah Ditta P.W. had five injuries, out of which one was declared grievous. It was on the hand which is not a vital part. Rest of the injuries on all the injured P.Ws. were simple in nature. Two persons of the accused party, namely, Muhammad Yaqub and Abdul Sattar, also suffered injuries. One of the injuries of Abdul Sattar was declared grievous due to fracture of clavicle and another injury on his person was the result of a sharp‑edged weapon. It is a case in which persons from both the sides were injured. The question whether the principle of vicarious liability is attracted, or A not, is to be determined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence which is yet to be recorded. In the circumstances, I feel that a case for the enlargement of the petitioners is made out. Consequently, I 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, Toba Tek Singh. .
S. G. D. Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer