Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41/B of 1985, decided on 4th March, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148 & 302/149‑‑Plea of alibi‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Different investigations conducted‑‑Police Officers arriving at different conclusions‑‑Background of enmity existing between parties‑‑No recovery effected from accused‑‑Case in circumstances, held, was of further enquiry‑‑Possibility that petitioners had not participated in occurrence, could not be ruled out-‑Bail granted.

Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chachar for Petitioners.

Akhtar Shabbir Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.

Ch. Rehmat Ali for the Complainant

Date of hearing: 4th March, 1985.

This is an application for bail. A case is registered against the petitioners alongwith others under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Depalpur on 7‑3‑1984. The allegation against the petitioners is that both of them were armed with hatchets and that Sardara petitioner gave a hatchet blow on the left cheek of the deceased whereas Khuda Yar petitioner gave a hatchet blow on the right leg of the deceased. The deceased in the instant case is Sardar Ali and there are 4 other co‑accused besides the petitioners who are also accused attributed specific parts. There are three eye‑witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Muhammad Ashiq, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Tufail who support the prosecution version.

2. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant argue that both the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and specific parts have been ascribed to them by the eye‑witnesses and, therefore, no case in made out for the grant of bail. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioners points out that three investigations had been held in the instant case first by Maqbool Ahmed Sub‑Inspector then by Majid Ullah Khan D.S.P. and thereafter by Ch. Bashir Ahmed D.S.P. Learned counsel for the State informs me that in the investigation conducted by Maqbool Ahmed Sub‑Inspector he did not find the petitioners as innocent. Similarly in the investigation conducted by Majid Ullah Khan, D.S.P. they were not found innocent, but in the third investigation conducted by Ch. Bashir Ahmed, D.S.P. they were found innocent. The police officer has brought the record and learned Assistant Advocate‑General has read the investigation report of Ch. Bashir Ahmed, D.S.P. He has investigated the matter and finally arrived at the conclusion that both the petitioners were not present on the spot and that they were present in some other villages. He has also observed that he recorded the statements of respectables of other villages who stated so and supported their alibi. For these reasons he arrived at the conclusion that due to the background of enmity between the parties they might have not participated in the occurrence but were implicated. He, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that they might have been innocent. Be that as it may, since there are different investigations held in case and the police officers arrived at different conclusions in my view it is a case of further enquiry and it may be that the petitioners had not participates in the occurrence or were not present at the time of occurrence or had raised the plea of alibi which was found correct by the Investigating Officers. I may also point out that no recovery had been effected from them. Since this is the position, I admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C. Okara. This petition is disposed of.

S.A. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.