Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 1907‑B and 2179‑B of 1984, decided on 28th August, 1984.

---S.498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑Bail before arrest, grant of‑‑Petitioner having enmity with deceased over Adda, abducting him at gun‑point while travelling by a wagon, producing him before his mother co‑petitioner and ultimately at her instigation committing his murder by firing shots‑‑No improbability found in prosecution version and fact that deceased also suffered some unexplained blunt weapon injuries yet to be determined after examination of doctor‑‑Petitioners, held, prima facie guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life‑‑Bail before arrest declined, in circumstances.

Mirza A. Anwar Beg for Petitioner.

Malik Abdur Rehman for the Complainant.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 28th August, 1984.

This order would dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1907‑B‑84 filed by Mst. Sajida Durrani and Criminal Miscellaneous No.2179‑B‑84 filed by Imran Mirza, as they are accused of the same case. The bail petition of Sarosh Mirza was dismissed in limine by this Court vide order, dated 13‑8‑1984.

2. A case under sections 147,148 and 302/34, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioners on the statement of Javed Iqbal (brother of Muhammad Ashiq deceased). The complainant disclosed in F.I.R. that on 23‑6‑1984, at about 2‑30 p.m. he alongwith his brother Muhammad Ashiq deceased were proceeding to Kot Khawaja Saeed in Wagon No. L.H.B. 8853. When they reached near Shazo Laboratory, Waseem alias Tapna armed with revolver, Ihsan Dar armed with Carbine came there riding on one motor‑cycle. While Sarosh Mirza armed with revolver and Bahadur petitioner armed with Carbine riding on another motor‑cycle came in front of their Wagon and stopped it, that Tapna and Sarosh put the revolver on the temples of Muhammad Ashiq deceased and made him sit in between them on the front seat, that the petitioners and their co‑accused produced the deceased before Mst. Sajida Durrani petitioner, who shouted that he should be taught lesson for enmity over Adds, that the petitioners and their co‑accused took the deceased in front of Bhatti Kariana Merchant, where Waseem alias Tapna and Sarosh alias Ghoshi co‑accused dragged out the deceased, who tried to run for his life but was held by Ihsan Dar co‑accused by the collar, that Tapna and Sarosh fired revolver shots at the deceased one after the other, that Bahadur petitioner and his mother Mst. Sajida Durrani petitioner made the complainant to raise his hands at revolver points, that Muhammad Ashiq died on account of injuries, that the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Umar, Muhammad Aslam and Arshad Ali.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it was a cock and bull story, that the prosecution version was highly improbable, that there was material contradiction between the prosecution case and the medical evidence and the injuries of the deceased with blunt weapon had not been explained in the F.I.R., that there was enmity between Waseem Mir and Sarosh Mirza, thus they could not join hands and commit murder of Muhammad Ashiq, that the case of both the petitioners was covered under first proviso of section 497 (1), Cr. P. C.

4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners have been considered. The record of the case has also been perused. These are two petitions for bail before arrest in a case punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is evident from the record that the petitioners had enmity with the deceased over Adds. Mst. Sajida Durrani is mother of Bahadur Mirza alias Imran and Sarosh Mirza co‑accused. Bahadur alias Imran and his brother Sarosh Mirza were riding on the same motor‑cycle. Both of them were armed with fire‑arms. Bahadur alias Imran Mirza and the other co‑accused abducted Muhammad Ashiq deceased and took the wagon to the bungalow of Mst. Sajida Durrani petitioner, who asked the other accused to teach lesson to the deceased. The petitioners and their co‑acused took the deceased in front of Bhatti Kariana Merchant and committed his murder by firing shots. Both the petitioners made the complainant to raise his hands at revolver point. I have perused the statements of Muhammad Afzal Wagon‑driver, Muhammadl Umar, Muhammad Aslam and Arahad Ali recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. They fully supported the prosecution case and involved the present petitioners and their co‑accused. I do riot find any improbability in the prosecution version. The deceased did receive fire‑arm injuries and it could not be said that the prosecution version was contradicted l by medical evidence. The deceased did receive some injuries with blunt weapon and it could be determined after the statement of the doctor if those injuries could result due to scuffle and due to fall. The copies' of the F.I.Rs. in respect of cases registered against Waseem alias Tapna on the statement of Sarosh Mirza, have not been placed on record. Even if it be admitted for the sake of arguments that those cases had been registered, those might have been compromised. From the evidence collected so far, there appear reasonable grounds to believe that the ‑petitioners are prima facie guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In view of the overwhelming' evidence, I do not feel inclined to allow bail before arrest to the Petitioners on the ground that their case was covered under first Proviso of section 497 (1), Cr.P.C. The petitions filed by Mst. Sajida Durrani and her son Bahadur alias Imran Mirza for bail before arrest are dismissed. I

S. G. D. Petitions dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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