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. 2833/B of 1984, decided on 16th December, 1984.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149/120‑B/109‑‑Bail‑‑ Police Zimini showing that sufficient evidence was available that accused were not present at spot‑‑Case of accused one of further enquiry‑‑Bail granted.
Khalid Ranjha and Anwear Ahmad for Petitioners.
Muhammad Ibrahim for the State.
Akbar, Manzur and Hassan petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and others under sections 148, 302/149, 120‑B and 109, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution version is that on 6‑8‑1983 Nisar Ahmad complainant and his mother Mst. Tasleem Begum boarded a bus from bus‑stand Baraghar for going to Bucheke. At about 5‑30 p.m. when the bus reached near the Dhari of Jaisal, the petitioners and their co‑accused Ashraf and Sharif came out of a car which had been parked near a culvert and stopped the bus. Manzur and Akbar petitioners and their co‑accused Ashraf dragged Mst. Tasleem Begum out of the bus. In the meantime, Sharif accused gave a signal to co‑accused Asghar who ran the car over her as a result of which she died at the spot.
3. Previously the petitioners moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 540‑B of 1984 which was dismissed by my brother Abdul Waheed, J., on 17‑3‑1984. The learned Judge being not available, this petition has been placed before me.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case was investigated by the A.S.P. Headquarters and he has come to the conclusion that the petitioners were not present at the spot and in that view of the matter the case of the petitioners needs further enquiry. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. He submits that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and specific role has been assigned to them, therefore, no ground for bail is made out.
5. I have gone through the relevant material. The Zimini, dated 10‑9‑1984 recorded by the A.S.P. Headquarters is to the effect that there is sufficient evidence to show that the petitioners were not present at the spot. It is, however, stated therein that since the murder was committed under a design by the relatives of the petitioners, therefore, it can be presumed that it was committed in consultation with them. There is, however, no evidence to support this conclusion. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that the case of the petitioners needs further enquiry. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Nankana Sahib.
M. Y. H.
Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer