Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.121/B, 42‑B and 104‑C.B. of 1985, decided on 11th February, 1985.

‑‑‑5.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail, grant of Accused not causing any injury to deceased‑‑Accused allowed bail, in circumstance.

‑‑‑S.497 (5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑No grievous injury attributed to accused‑‑Accused allegedly carrying a gun yet no shot fired from it during occurrence‑‑Cancellation of bail declined, in circumstances.

Sahibzada Farooq Ali Khan and Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.

Zafar Mahmood Anjum for the State.

This order will dispose of bail applications of (1) Emanual (Criminal Miscellaneous No.121‑B of 1985) and of (2) Ibrahim and Rehmat Masih sons of Yousaf (Criminal Miscellaneous No.42‑B/1985) and the application moved by Younis Masih (Criminal Miscellaneous No.104/C.B. of 1985) for the cancellation of bail of Wattoo granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Multan on 4‑12‑1984.

2. Emanual, Ibrahim, Rehmat Masih and Wattoo alongwith others stand charged with the murder of Munawar Masih deceased and for assaulting Manzoor, Khalid and Zafar P.Ws. with sticks on 18‑6‑1984.

3. The motive for the offence was that Rehmat Masih petitioner suspected that Zafar P.W. had molested his niece which led to an altercation between them. Daniyal to whom a fatal blow is attributed has not applied for bail. The learned Sessions Judge, Multan granted bail to Wattoo and Rehmat sons of Barkat on the ground that no injury at all had been ascribed to Rehmat while two blows were generally ascribed to Wattoo and he was not alleged to have fired at anybody. The petitioners were arrested on 25‑6‑1984. Ibrahim and Rehmat Masih besides, causing injuries to the P.Ws. are also alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased. Emanual petitioner is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. He is alleged to have injured Manzoor P.W.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since Ibrahim and Rehmat Masih petitioners are alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased and the injured P.Ws., therefore, I do not consider them entitled to bail and accordingly, dismiss their application.

5. However, the case of Emanual petitioner stands on different footing. He is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. I Accordingly, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with twos sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C. Khanewal

6. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly exercised his discretion in granting bail to Wattoo because no grievous injury is attributed him and further that altogether he was allegedly carrying a gun he did not fire from it during the occurrence. Accordingly the application for the cancellation of his bail is dismissed.

S. G. D. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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