Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2022/B of 1985, decided on 16th October, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307, 326, 325 & 148/149/109‑‑Bail‑‑Grant of‑‑Occurrence taking place in public festival‑ Birth entry showing age of accused as sixteen years‑‑Accused not found to be having bad design‑‑Possibility of accused's being tutelage to other co‑accused not ruled out‑‑Accused not found to be sharing same degree of intention with co‑accused‑‑Part played by accused found to be singularly superficial‑‑Deceased dying due to injury attributed to co‑accused‑‑Venue of incident showing that things brewed up in their own way‑‑Intention of way laying of deceased by accused found to be missing‑‑Occurrence not being so brutal participation of so many people, held, could not be easily tied down to any well‑planned design‑‑Bail allowed.

Muhammad Aqil Mirza for Petitioner.

Nasim Iqbal for the State.

It is an application for bail for the petitioner Muhammad Iqbal who was one of ten accused involved in an affray taking place near Darbar Mardan Shah at dead of night where allegedly the parties had gone to pay homage on a Mela. The sole contribution imputed to the present petitioner was a blunt weapon injury on the scapula of the deceased being one of the two sustained by him. The other one of course, being fatal was located on his head and was attributed to co‑accused Arif who has not applied for bail.

2. Mr. Muhammad Aqil Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner contended that the occurrence took place suddenly without any sustained background and further that the injury attributed to the petitioner was by no means much significant. He added that age‑wise being still less than sixteen, the petitioner was entitled to bail as a matter of course.

3. Mr. Nasim Iqbal, Advocate for the State opposed the bail pointing out that even though the injury ascribed to the petitioner was not very vital, yet his presence carrying a Danda and applying the same to the deceased showed his intent to take part in the occurrence with tenacity of purpose. According to him, his implication vicariously was quite sufficient to refuse him the relief. He added that there was already bad blood between the parties over the title of a shop and that the attack was pre‑arranged. He denied the petitioner's minority as according to police record, he was about 20.

4. The birth entry placed upon the record reveals that he was still less than 16. There is no rebuttal thereof. Being one among many in a Mela may lend support to the petitioner's contention that he was not there in pursuance of any bad design. He may be just a tutelage by virtue of his minority to other co‑accused and may not necessarily share the same degree of intention. The part played by him was singularly superficial as only a bruise was caused to the deceased on his scapula. His death admittedly was the result of the other injury allegedly caused A by the co‑accused Arif. The venue of occurrence also suggests in a way that things brewed up in their own way because if the intent had been to waylay, the locale of Mela on a Darbar may not have perhaps been appropriate for its execution. Counsel was right in urging that the occurrence was not that brutal as the death was the result of only one injury and hence the participation of as many people could not be easily tied down to any well‑planned design.

5. For all these reasons, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his filing bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 (rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner Gujrat.

H. A. K. 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.