Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 253 of 1984, decided on 20th November, 1984.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4‑7‑1984, passed in Crl. Misc. No. 1198‑B of 1984).

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.497‑‑Petitioners accused of murder‑‑Allegedly armed with revolver with intention to kill but snatched hatchet from someone else and caused injuries with blunt side on legs of deceased‑‑Injuries attributed to other petitioner not substantiated by medical report‑‑Being a fit case for further enquiry, petition converted into appeal and bail allowed.

M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (absent).

Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1984.

‑‑ Muhammad Amir, Bashir and Jehan petitioners applied for leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 4‑7‑1984, dismissing their bail application.

2. The petitioners alongwith 3 others are accused of the murder of Muhammad Ramzan.

The motive for the offence is stated to be that Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) was suspected of having illicit relations with Mst. Sawai daughter of Muhammad Nawaz co‑accused. All the accused are said to have inflicted hatchet blows (with its reverse side) to Muhammad Ramzan on his legs as a result of which he died.

3. The allegation against Muhammad Amir petitioner is that he was carrying a revolver but he did not use it and, instead, is stated to have snatched the ‑hatchet of Jehan co‑accused and inflicted injuries with its blunt side on the legs of the deceased. The allegation against Jehan petitioner is that he gave injury with the blunt side of his hatchet on the legs of the deceased.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition with regard to Bashir co‑accused.

5. We issued notice to the State and Rao M.Yousaf, has appeared on behalf of the State.

The petitioners' counsel argued that if Muhammad Amir had gone armed with a revolver with the intention to kill Muhammad Ramzan, he would have used it rather than snatching the hatchet from someone else and inflicted injuries therewith. As regards Jehan petitioner, he submitted that the only allegation against him is that he caused injuries on non‑vital part of the deceased which has not been substantiated by) the medical report.

6. After having given our anxious thought to these contentions we feel that this is a case of 'further inquiry'. We, therefore, convert the petition into appeal and allow the same, and grant bail to Muhammad Amir and Jehan petitioners, in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali .

M. I. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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