Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 50 of 1978, decided on 18th April, 1978.

(On appeal from the order dated 22‑1‑1978, passed by the Lahore High Court in Cr.Misc. No. 4719‑B of 1977).

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.497‑‑Bail in murder case‑‑Report of Inspector Police containing no clear cut finding of innocence but in subsequent report made by Crimes Branch petitioners found to be guilty‑‑Leave to appeal refused‑‑Trial Court, however, directed to expedite disposal of case which had been considerably delayed.

Ch. M. Aslam Chattha, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh.ljaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.

Date of hearing: 18th April, 1978. ,

.‑‑The petitioners, by this petition, seek special leave to appeal from the order dated 22‑1‑1978, passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, by which their bail application (Cr. Misc. No.4719‑B of 1977) was dismissed. The relevant facts are that a case under sections 302/149 and 148, C.P.C. was registered at Police Station Manawala, District Sheikhupura, on 21‑7‑1976, at the instance of one Allah Ditta, against the petitioners and seven others, for having murdered Sahib Khan and Mukhtar alias Mokha. The allegations are that on 21‑7‑1976 at noon time the petitioners, allegedly armed with gun and spear (Ahmed petitioner was armed with a gun while Bhara petitioner was having a spear) alongwith their co‑accused, who were variously armed, way‑laid the complaint and the deceased persons, namely, Sahib Khan and Mukthar alias Mokha, and killed the deceased persons. According to the F.I.R. Ahmed petitioner fired his gun hitting Mokha deceased on his arm; whereas Bhara petitioner inflicted a spear blow on the chest of Sahib deceased.

The motive alleged was that 14/15 years prior to the occurrence a brother of Mokha co‑accused was murdered by sahib Khan deceased, his brother Pehalwan and some other persons, but they were acquitted. Again, about 11 months prior to the occurrence Amir son of Thairaj was murdered and a case was registered against Yara, nephew of Sahib Khan deceased, and others, but they were declared innocent by the Police.

It is submitted before us that the petitioner alongwith four others were declared innocent by the Police, therefore, the case was one of further inquiry and they were entitled to the concession of bail. It was further submitted that the petitioners were not attributed fatal injuries. Petitioner No.1 was alleged to have fired from his gun, hitting the arm of Mokha deceased, but according to the medical report no injury was found on the arm of the said deceased; whereas petitioner No.2 was attributed a spear below on the chest of Sahib deceased. It is submitted that considerable delay has taken place in the lodging of the F. I. R., and since the petitioners were arrested the trial is nowhere in sight. Consequently, for all these reasons, they were entitled to the concession of bail.

So far as the plea that the petitioners were found innocent by, the Police, the relevant report of the S.D.P.O. (Inspector) Manawala, dated 14‑8‑1976, has been read out to us in which it was observed that no one was coming forward to depose against the petitioners and luck was favouring them but it does not contain any clear cut finding of innocence. However, in the subsequent report made by the Crimes Branch on 22‑1‑1977, the petitioners alongwith their co‑accused were found to be guilty.

However, we find some force in the plea of the petitioners that their trial has been considerably delayed. We would, therefore, direct that the trial Court should expedite the disposal of the case.

This petition, subject to the above direction, is dismissed.

M. I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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