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. 964‑B of 1985, decided on 15th May, 1985.
‑‑----S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/328/109‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Conspiracy to kill‑‑No visible injury found on dead body Deceased dying of poisoning‑‑No eye‑witness to administering of poison to deceased‑‑Two co‑accused declared innocent and not arrested‑‑Question whether accused would hatch conspiracy in presence and hearing of witnesses, held, would require serious consideration at trial and case needed further inquiry‑‑Accused allowed bail in circumstances.
Syed Talib H. Rizvi for Appellants.
Faiz Muhammad Sadiq for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th May, 1985.
Piara, Madara and Mst. Shahran petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them under sections 302 and 328 read with section 109, P.P.C.
The F.I.R. version is that 12/13 years back Muhammad War‑is deceased was married to Mst. Shahran petitioner and in exchange Mst. Allah Wasai, sister of the deceased, was given in marriage to Piayara petitioner, brother of aforesaid Mst. Shahran. In consequence of family disputes both the girls left the houses of their husbands and started living with their parents. About two years back there was a compromise, as a result of which Mst. Shahran petitioner joined the deceased. About a fortnight after the compromise, Piara petitioner thrashed his wife Mst. Allah Wasai and‑she again started living with her parents. About a month back Muhammad Waris deceased got a case registered under section 379, P.P.C. against Piara petitioner and Muhammad Bakhsh, father of Madara petitioner; over which Mst. Shahran petitioner, sister of Piara petitioner got annoyed. On 28th October, 1984 Ghulam Farid P.W. found the dead body of Muhammad Waris lying in a field Mst. Shahran petitioner was found missing from the house. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that two days prior to the occurrence Arif and Ramzan P.Ws. had overheard Piara, Madura, petitioners, and Nura and Ghafura accused saying that Waris should be got killed by poisoning through Mst. Shahran.
2. There was no visible injury on the dead body. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, an insecticide belonging to chlorinated hydrocarbon group was detected in the viscera.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends and the learned State counsel concedes that there is no eye‑witness to the administering of poison to the deceased. The learned State counsel further concedes that Nura and Ghafura accused named in the F.I.R., were found innocent and were not arrested. The question whether the petitioners Piara and Madara would hatch a conspiracy in the presence and hearing of Arif and Ramzan, would require .a serious consideration at the trial. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that the case of the petitioners needs further inquiry. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction) of Assistant Commissioner, Jhang.
S.A. Bail granted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer