Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2341B of 1985, decided on 3rd February, 1985.

‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148 & 149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused being less than 16 years of age at time of occurrence‑‑Accused causing simple injury with a Sota to prosecution witness on a non‑vital part‑‑According to F.I.R. whole tenor of allegations being a dispute occurring between accused and said injured prosecution witness who was main target‑‑Injured prosecution witness, a young boy allegedly attacked by fifteen persons alongwith accused indicating fact that how much venom was of accused against injured prosecution witness‑‑Although luck favouring injured person and deceased failing pray to assault but fact remaining that injured person was target and accused was reason behind and had actively participated in occurrence by causing injury to injured person‑‑Accused, held, not deserved any concession of bail even if he be less than 16 years of age‑‑Bail declined in circumstances.

‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148 & 149‑‑Bail‑ Accused earlier moving a petition for bail alongwith two co‑accused but at time of arguments at admission stage his counsel not pressing petition qua him‑‑Accused moving subsequent bail petition after about 11 days‑ Only fresh material placed on record of subsequent bail petition being a school leaving certificate of accused, otherwise ground of being less than 16 years of age taken in previous petition also‑‑Accused not found entitled to bail on merits‑‑Bail refused in circumstances.

Petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No. 155 Police Station Miana Gondal, District Gujrat under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered on the statement of Yasin on 11‑8‑1984 for an occurrence which had taken place on the same day.

In all, sixteen accused have been named in the First Information Report. One person has been murdered and one prosecution witness received injuries during the occurrence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that apart from the fact that the petitioner is below 16, the only part assigned to him is that he had caused a simple injury with a Sota to Anar Khan P.W. on a non‑vital part. In support of his plea for grant of bail on the ground of the petitioner being below 16, learned counsel has relied upon school‑leaving certificate according to which the petitioner's date of birth is 1‑2‑1970. Learned counsel has stated that birth entry from the Union Council record could not be produced as the same was not found to be recorded therein. Learned counsel has submitted that even the Police while recording his particulars, has recorded, age of the petitioner as 16 years. He has offered that if it is considered necessary, the petitioner may be got medically examined by a Radiologist for determination of his age.

According to the F.I.R. attached to the petition, Mst. Aisha and Mst. Rehmi, women belonging to the family of the accused had pelted stones on Anar Khan, a grandson of the complainant when he was passing beside their Dera with a relative, saying, that in spite of the fact that yesterday you had quarrelled with Nasra, you are passing by from in front of us. In the meantime, Nasra petitioner armed with a Sota alongwith 13 other male persons armed with hatchets, guns and Sotas, suddenly came out from a Baithak. On a Lalkara raised by Ahmad, Nasra petitioner gave a Sota blow to Anar Khan, whereafter Anar Khan was caused injuries by Manzur Massalli, Yusaf Massalli, Dosa, Ghulam Muhammad and Amir. Mst. Aisha and Mst. Rehmi had also caused further injuries by pelting brick‑bats. When the complainant went ahead to save his grandson, he was caught by some of the accused. In the meantime, Muhammad Akram (deceased) son of the complainant came out who was fired at by Nasar son of Fazal Elahi as a result of which he fell down and died.

It is clear from the F.I.R. that whole tenor of the allegations is a dispute which had occurred between the petitioner and Anar Khan. Anar Khan P.W. to whom the petitioner is alleged to have caused injury, was the main target. Apparently, Anar Khan must be a young boy and if he was alleged to have been attacked by fifteen persons alongwith the petitioner, it can be well‑imagined as to how much venom was of the accused against Anar Khan P.W. Although luck favoured Anar Khan P.W. and Muhammad Akram (deceased) fell prey to the assault, but the fact remains that he was the target and Nasra petitioner was the reason behind and had actively participated in the occurrence by causing injury to him.

In this view of the matter, I do not think, the petitioner deserves any concession of bail even if he be less than 16. I find no merit in this petition. The same stands dismissed.

It may be noted that learned counsel for the petitioner earlier had moved a petition for bail on behalf of the petitioner alongwith two co‑accused, but at the time of arguments at admission stage, learned counsel had not pressed the petition qua him and has moved this petition after about 11 days. The only fresh material placed on record of this petition is a school leaving certificate, otherwise the ground of being less than sixteen, was taken in that petition also.

H.A.K. 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.