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.
P L D 1985 Lahore 201
Before Mazharul Haq, J
HIDAYAT AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners
versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2764‑B of 1984, decided on 12th December, 1984.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
‑‑ S. 497‑Bail order should give outlines of allegations against accused and if it was a case in which police had found accused innocent, material on basis of which Investigating Officer came to said conclusion should be mentioned to make bail order a speaking order.‑[Judgment].
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
‑‑ S. 497(5)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149‑Bail before arrest, cancellation of‑Two eye‑witnesses named in F. I. R. in their statement under S. 161, Cr. P. C. supporting allegation made by informant‑Accused said to have opened attack and caused fatal injury to deceased‑Bail allowed to such accused cancelled by High Court.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
‑‑ S. 497, Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 3021148/149‑BailInjuries caused by accused grievous and according to post‑mortem report also contributed towards death of deceased‑Bail to accused declined.
(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V' of 1898)
‑‑ S. 497‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149‑Accused attributed to simple injury on leg of deceased‑Bail allowed to such accused.
M. Rafiq Butt for Petitioners.
Khawaja Shaukat Ali for the State.
Hidayat, Wazir sons of Nur Muhammad and Mushtaq, petitioners, alongwith Ashiq and Inayat are accused of the murder of Ashiq son of Murid. The case was registered against them on 11-8-83 at Police Station Mangtanwala, District Sheikhupura.
2. Ashiq accused who was attributed the main role was allowed bail before arrest by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, on 29-10-1983. A notice was issued to Ashiq respondent as to why his bail should not be cancelled. Criminal Miscellaneous 3149-B/84 is being disposed of alongwith this petition.
3. The occurrence in this case was said to have taken place over a pre-emption suit which was filed by Muhammad Younus, informant, brother of Ashiq (deceased). The accused forced them to withdraw the suit which they did not, and a few days before the occurrence, there was an altercation between them. On the day of occurrence, the accused allegedly raising Lalkaras emerged out of a charri field and opened attack on Ashiq son of Murid. Inayat accused was said to be armed with a hatchet while the remaining four had dangs. Ashiq respondent who was attributed the main role had opened the attack by inflicting a dang blow on the head of the deceased which felled him. Thereafter, the deceased was injured by Mushtaq, petitioner, who gave a stick blow on the leg of the deceased. This injury according to the post-mortem report was simple in nature. Hidayat, petitioner, was attributed a grievous injury 'on the leg of the deceased and according to the post-mortem report, this injury collectively with the head injury was the cause of death of the victim. Wazir, petitioner, was also attributed a grievous injury on the left shin of the deceased. Its nature and effect was the same as that of the injury caused by Hidayat.
4. In this case, the Investigating Officer was not available, the P. D. S. P. Sheikhupura was sent for to explain the investigation. According to him, in view of the investigation of Raja Muhammad Arsal, Ashiq was found innocent but now the respondent has also been challenged in this case. It may be mentioned here that the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the interim bail allowed to Asbiq respondent because the Investigating Officer did not require him. The earlier order allowing interim bail and the order confirming the bail do not contain the facts of case. A bail order need not be lengthy but at least, it should give the outlines of the allegations against the accused and if it is a case in which the police has found the accused innocent then the material on the basis of t which the Investigating Officer came to that conclusion should be mentioned, so that it should be a speaking order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no less than 35 persons including the Chairman and a Councillor of Chuhang appeared before the investigating Officer in support of the plea of all i of Ashiq and it was on the basis of this material he considered the accused innocent. Before going into this aspect of the case, I would first like to' mention that this case was registered on 11-8-1983 and according to the P D. S. P., the statement of the accused was recorded for the first time on 2-9-1983; This delay speaks for itself about the investigation' However, it is said that on 7-9-1983, the accused produced his witnesses before the Investigating Officer but their statements under section 161,) Cr. P. C. have not been recorded. It is also said that the Investigating Officer has since disappeared and because of his conduct in several other cases, he has been dismissed from service. On the other hand, there are two eye-witnesses named in the F. I. R. In their statements under section 161, Cr. P. C. they have supported the allegations made by the informant. Ashiq respondent is said to have opened the attack and caused the fatal injury. The bail allowed to him is, therefore, cancelled.
6. The injuries caused by Hidayat and Wazir petitioners were grit-. vous and according to the post-mortem report they also contributed C towards the death of Ashiq son of Murid (deceased). I, therefore, do not consider it a fit case for bail to them. In so far as Mushtaq petitioner i concerned, he is attributed a simple injury on the leg of the deceased. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs 50,000 (Rs. fifty thousand) D with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C./Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura.
M. Z. M. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer