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. 508‑B of 1983, decided on 16th March, 1983.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/32‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Further enquiry‑‑Police Zimni showing admission of complainant that none of two eye‑witnesses had seen occurrence‑‑Court was entitled to look at strength and weakness of prosecution case for purpose of bail‑ Whatever be the evidentiary value, it was for the trial Court to consider sufficient circumstances made out for further enquiry‑‑Bail granted.
Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah for Petitioner.
Irshad Khan for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th March, 1983.
The petitioner was reported against vide F.I.R. No. 90 dated 25‑5‑1982 Police Station Midh Ranjha, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha, for offence under section 302/307/34, P.P.C.
2. There were two alleged eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. One is Sadiq and the other Shera. Muhammad Nawaz the nephew of the deceased, Muhabbati is the complainant who is not a resident of the Chak.
3. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance has been placed on police Zimni, dated 9‑6‑1982 which records the proceedings of investigation conducted on the same day. It stands established therefrom that Muhammad Nawaz complainant had admitted before the police that there was one eye‑witness present at the scene of occurrence but all the same insisted that the allegation was correct. It is further alleged that there was a previous blood‑feud as has been witnessed by the murder of the father of Manzoor petitioner. There is no recovery in the case and no independent corroboration forthcoming.
4. I feel that the Court is entitled to look at the strength and weaknesses of the prosecution case for the purpose of bail. The material produced by the police at the hearing does tend to show that the complainant had admitted that neither he nor the two witnesses has seen the occurrence. Whatever be the evidentiary value, it is for the trial Court to consider ultimately. But for the purpose of bail I think it to be a sufficient circumstances to make out the petitioner's case one of further inquiry. I would accordingly admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha.
I.D. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer