Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22131B of 1985, decided on 5th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 3021149/148‑‑Ball‑‑Nine persons named as accused in F.I.R. who were allegedly armed with guns, rifles and pistol‑‑Deceased receiving one injury‑‑As to whose fire hit deceased not known‑‑Fatal shot not attributed to any accused in F.I.R.‑‑Role attributed to accused was similar to that attributed to co‑accused, who were allowed bail‑‑Petitioner also enlarged on bail on principle of consistency.

Syed Ehtesham Qadir for Petitioner.

Muhammad Khurshid for the State.

Sikandar petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 148 and 302/149, P.P.C. This is his second petition for bail. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3514‑B of 1984 previously filed by him, was dismissed on 22nd January, 1985 by Mr. Justice Gulbaz Khan (as he then was).

The F.I.R. version is that on 8th April, 1984 at 7‑30 a.m. the petitioner armed with a gun and his co‑accused armed with guns, rifles and pistol came to the Ihata of Muhammad Amir complainant and started firing. Ahmad deceased was hit by a fire and died soon after.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is at par with that of Sharif and Adil who have been admitted to bail by this Court, therefore, in view of the principle of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi v. The State 1979 S C M R 9. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

3. Sharif and Adil were admitted to bail mainly on the ground that during the investigation Inspector C.I.A. Okara, had found that there was cross‑firing by the parties and it was not known whose fire had hit the deceased. This aspect was not considered in the previous bail application. It need also be mentioned that in the F.I.R. the fatal shot has not been attributed to any of the accused. According to the post‑mortem report, there was only one injury on the deceased whereas nine persons were named as accused in the F.I.R. who were allegedly armed with guns, rifles and pistol. Three accused, namely, Muhammad, A Hanif and Jafar, were found innocent during the investigation. The role attributed to the petitioner is similar to that attributed to co‑accused Sharif and Adil in the F.I.R., therefore, on the principle of requirement of consistency, a case for enlargement of the petitioner is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Okara.

M.A.K. Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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