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. 875‑B of 1985, decided on 29th May, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 497/498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Two versions‑-- Accused/petitioner attributed simple injury in F.I.R.‑‑In second investigation he was held responsible for fatal injury‑‑Accused found to have participated in commission of crime, by both investigations‑ Concerted attack by accused party‑‑As many as four eye‑witnesses supporting prosecution‑‑Accused, held, was not entitled to bail in circumstances and as such petition was dismissed.
Ali Ahmad Malik for Petitioner.
Syed Munir Hussain Naqvi for the State.
Ijaz petitioner alongwith Naveed, Mubashir, Nasir, Ishaq and Sadiq are accused of the murder of Muhammad Aslam and for having murderously assaulted Javed Iqbal his brother. The case was registered against them at Police Station Wahndo District Gujranwala, on 22‑6‑1984.
2. In the F.I.R., Naveed accused was attributed an injury with a dagger to Aslam deceased. Ijaz, and Mubashir were attributed Sarya blows to Aslam (deceased) in the flank and the knee. The matter was reinvestigated and Raja Munawar D.S.P. found that the fatal injury was given by Ijaz to the deceased whereas Sadiq and Ishaq' were his companions and not Naveed, Mubashir and Nasir.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since there are two versions of the occurrence and the result of two investigations is entirely different so much so that the investigation conducted by the D.S.P. introduced Sadiq and Ishaq in place of the other three accused mentioned above. It would, therefore, be a case of further enquiry. I have considered the matter. Suffice it to say that Ijaz petitioner has been found to have taken part in the commission of this crime by both the investigations. The difference is only of the role played by him. According to the second investigation, he was responsible for the fatal injury whereas according to the allegations in the F.I.R., he was attributed simple injuries. In view of the fact that a concerted attack was made by the accused in which Ijaz took part and the allegations are supported by not less than four eye‑witnesses, I do not consider it a fit case for bail to him. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
S. A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer