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.2037/B of 1984, decided on 25th July, 1984.
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Bail pressed on grounds that only simple injuries attributed to petitioner; trial not concluded despite lapse of one year and 9 months since occurrence and question of common intention yet to be determined during trial‑‑Points raised by petitioner, held, would require consideration after recording of evidence‑‑Petition dismissed, in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azim for Petitioner.
This is 2nd application by Imdad Ali petitioner for bail. The facts are stated in the F.I.R. lodged on 13‑10‑1982 by Muhammad Afzal complainant. It is stated therein that, he alongwith Latif, was proceeding towards the factory of Zafar and when they were in Chowk he saw that his brother Arshad Mahmood with revolver, Tariq Majeed and Shahid Majeed armed with Chhuris and Imdad Ali (petitioner) armed with Khunjar near the house of Faiz Ahmad. In the view of the witnesses Abdul Majeed raised a Lalkara whereafter Shahid Majeed gave a Chhurri blow hitting his back and Imdad Ali (petitioner) gave Khanjar blow hitting his chest who started running towards the complainant, at that time Tariq Majeed gave Chhurri blow on the thigh of Arshad Mahmood. Then Muhammad Afzal complainant and Latif tried to rescue him. Thereafter Abdul Majeed fired two shots at the complainant party, but none was injured. Arshad Mahmood fell at some distance in front of the house of Nadeem Ahmad. The petitioner was arrested. He moved an application for bail which was dismissed earlier and this is the 2nd application as stated above.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that occurrence took place on 13‑10‑1982 but the trial has not yet commenced /concluded and as such the petitioner be allowed bail. It is further contended that simple injuries have been attributed to the petitioner. It is, therefore, argued that the common intention will be determined during the trial and as such it is a case of further inquiry.
3. I have considered the above arguments. The points raised by the learned counsel will be considered after recording of the evidence. I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly.
S. G. D. Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer