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 Revision No. 193 of 1984, decided on 26th November, 1984.
‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑One of accused who caused simple injury by Sota granted bail by High Court‑‑Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail to co‑accused who also used Sota but caused head injury considering his case at par‑‑Two more injuries were found on head of deceased caused by two other co‑accused‑‑Victim was hospitalised and operated upon‑‑Co‑accused's case, held, distinguishable from that of accused already granted bail by High Court‑‑Bail cancelled in circumstances.
Muhammad Akbar v. State 1978 S C M R 7; Khadim Hussain v. State 1978 S C M R 146 and Mahla v. State 1976 P Cr. L J 1059 ref.
Mian Sher Alam for Petitioner.
Ch.M. Abdul Saleem for Respondents.
S. D. Qureshi for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th November, 1984.
The petitioner, Fazal Dad, who is complainant in the case registered at Police Station Lala Musa, on the 2nd August, 1983, vide first information report No. 230 has sought cancellation of the bail granted to Saghir Ahmad and Muhammad Riaz, respondents 1 and 2, respectively, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat on the 4,th April, 1984. The learned Additional Sessions Judge admitted respondents 1 and 2 to bail because he considered that their case was at par with that of their co‑accused, Sardar Khan, who had been allowed bail by this Court on the 25th January, 1984. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of respondents 1 and 2 is distinguishable from and is more serious than that of Sardar Khan and, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail though their learned counsel supports the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
2. In order to appreciate the roles played by Sardar Khan, Saghir Ahmad and Muhammad Riaz, it may be advantageous to refer to the contents of the first information report. They are alleged to have been armed with a Sota each. Sardar Khan is said to have caused simple hurt to the petitioner whose injuries are simple in nature. Sardar Khan did not inflict any injury upon any other person. Saghir Ahmad administered one Sota blow on the right shoulder of the petitioner and this injury is simple. Saghir Ahmad is not alleged to have given any blow to anyone else, The case of Saghir Ahmad is, therefore, not different from that of Sardar Khan. Hence his entitlement to bail is in order.
3. Muhammad Riaz is stated in the report to have struck a Sota blow on the head of Amjad Iqbal, son of Muhammad Khan deceased, who received three other injuries at the hands of other accused and two of these injuries are grievous. Amjad Iqbal had to be removed to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where he was operated upon. In these circumstances the case of Muhammad Riaz is distinguishable from that of Sardar Khan. Muhammad Riaz could not earn advantage of the rule A laid down in Muhammad Akbar v. State 1978 S C M R 7; Khadim Hussain v. State 1978 S C M R 146 and Mahla v. State 1976 P Cr. L J 1059 for securing bail. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge admitting him to bail was not legal and proper and needs to be revised. Accordingly this petition is partially accepted and the bail granted to Muhammad Riaz, respondent 2, is cancelled. He will be arrested and detained in judicial lock‑up.
I. D. ‑‑‑‑‑ Petition partially accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer