Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 383 of 1985, decided on 21st October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307‑‑Bail‑‑Fight taking place between parties over road leading to their houses‑‑Cases and counter- cases having been lodged against each ‑other‑‑All accused in. counter- cases released on bail‑‑Injuries on person of all injured frog side of complainant declared simple in nature‑‑Co‑accused who had used deadly weapons like fire‑arms and knives granted bail by Sessions 'Judge but accused who had used Lathi and caused simple injury was refused bail on ground that injury was caused by him on head i.e. vital part of body‑‑Distinction thus drawn, held, was wrong and absolutely unjustified and bail improperly withheld to such accused‑‑Bail granted.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307‑‑Baii‑‑Attempt to murder‑ Intention of accused /assailant in a case under S. 307, Penal Code, was to be judged from weapons used and injuries actually sustained by injured.

Muhammad Hamza Khan for. Applicant.

S. Sarfraz Ahmed Asstt. A‑G. for the State.

In the background of a dispute over the road leading to the houses of the parties a fight had taken place between them on 18‑8‑1985 at 6‑30 p.m. Counter‑F.I.Rs. were lodged by both the parties. According to the F.I.R. of this case accused abused Gin Tiyaz. Thereafter, accused Raqeeb fired pistol shot at Pir Saleh Shah and injured him. Then accused Shahbaz gave Danda blow on the head of Pir Saleh Shah while accused Fayaz gave him knife blows. Accused Rashid gave knife blows to Imtiaz while accused Shahbaz gave him Danda blows.

According to the F.I.R. of the counter‑case Gul Tiyaz is said to have fired pistol shot at Rashid while Saleh Shah is said to have caused knife injuries to Raqeeb and Shahbaz.

2. Injuries on the person of all the injured from the side of complainant in this case are declared to be simple in nature. The learned Sessions Judge (Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo) granted bail to accused Raqeeb although he had fired pistol shot and caused injuries, and to accused, Rashid although he had given knife blows, and to Yousuf although too had he given knife blow, on the ground that the injuries caused .by them were not on the vital part of the body, and therefore, they cannot be made liable for an offence under section 307 P.P.C. He has tried to distinguish the case of Shahbaz from that of all the above applicants by observing that though the injury caused by him which was on head and was also simple but since head is a vital part of the body, therefore, refused to grant him bail. The distinction thus drawn is wrong and absolutely unjustified. It is strange that the accused who had used deadly weapons like fire‑arms and knives were granted bail while the accused who had used Lathi and caused simple injury. was refused bail. By now it is settled law that the intention of an assailant in a case under section 307, P.P.C. is to be judged from the weapons used and the injuries actually sustained by the injured. Moreover, there are counter‑cases between the parties and all the accused in the counter‑cases have been released on bail. A host of rulings was cited before the learned Sessions Judge by applicants counsel according to which in counter‑cases where it was yet to be determined as to who was the aggressor, bail was to be granted to both the sides. The rulings thus cited have not been properly explained by him. The bail of applicant Shahbaz appears to have been withheld improperly by learned Judge. I, therefore, order that applicant Shahbaz be also released on bail furnishing surety and P.R. in the sum of Rs.10,000 to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge.

M.Y.H. 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.