Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1720‑B of 1984, decided on 5th August, 1984.

‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Deceased given a Churri blow on abdomen, a delicate part of body‑‑Injuries sustained by petitioner explained in F.I.R. itself‑‑Complainant, giving counter‑version of occurrence, filed one month after occurrence‑‑Prima facie contention that petitioner acted in self‑defence, held, having no force‑‑Bail declined, in circumstances.

Mehar Ghulam Ali Mubashar for Petitioner.

Zakaur Rehman for the Complainant.

Wilayat Umer for the State.

Zafar Iqbal petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under sections 307 and 354, P.P.C.

2. The allegations are that on 21st April, 1984 at about 3 p.m. Zafar Iqbal confronted Mst. Rasulan and proclaimed that he would not allow her to go home that day. Mst. Rasulan tried to run away but the petitioner caught her, upon which her brother Muhammad Yusuf came running to the spot. The petitioner took out a Chhuri from his Shalwar and gave a blow to Muhammad Yusuf hitting his abdomen. He gave another blow from the wrong side which landed on his neck. Mst. Rasulan tried to rescue him, upon which the petitioner injured her as well. On the alarm of Mst. Rasulan, Rehmat Ali and Ghulam Muhammad also reached the spot and rescued Muhammad Yusuf from the clutches of the petitioner. During the scuffle the petitioner also suffered injuries.

Muhammad Yusuf and Mst. Rasulan injured were medically examined on the same day at 5‑30 and 5‑40 p.m., respectively. Muhammad Yusuf had two injuries on his person. Injury No.1 was a stab wound in the abdomen. He was cold, restless and in severe shock. Injury No.1 was grievous caused by sharp‑edged weapon and injury No.2 was simple caused by blunt weapon.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner also suffered injuries during the occurrence and a complaint has already been filed, therefore, it is a case of counter‑version. It is submitted that the petitioner was the victim of assault and he had acted in exercise of the right of self‑defence. The prayer for bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and the State. It is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and he gave a Chhuri blow on the delicate part of the body, therefore, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C.

4. I have gone through the relevant material. The occurrence is not denied. The petitioner caused injuries to Muhammad Yusuf and his sister Mst. Rasulan. The injury in the abdomen of Muhammad Yusui was grievous. The injuries on the petitioner have been explained in the F.I.R. itself. Prima facie, the contention that the petitioner had acted in the exercise of the right of self‑defence has no force. The occurrence took place on 21st April, 1984 at 3 p.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 6 p.m. The complaint was lodged on 22nd May, 1984. In para 5 of the complaint it is stated that after the H petitioner had caused injuries to Muhammad Yusuf injured in self‑defence, the members of the complainant party wrongfully confined the petitioner in a room from where he was recovered by the police and falsely implicated in collusion with the complainant party. On the face of it, this averment does not appear to be correct because the record shows that the petitioner was arrested by the police on 23rd April, 1984. I, therefore, find no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.

S.G.D Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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