Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26/B of 1985, decided on 23rd February, 1985.
---‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Accused firing a gunshot eat prosecution witness hitting him on vital part of body‑‑Bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge, cancelled in circumstance.
M. Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti with Irshad Hussain Bhatti .for Petitioner.
M. Akram Qureshi for Respondent No. 1.
Muhammad Sharif Butt for the State.
Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1985.
Muhammad Ali respondent was allowed bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 6‑1‑1985, on the ground that simple injury to Riaz P.W. with gun had been attributed to respondent No.1 and besides no weapon of offence had been recovered from respondent No.1.
2. According to the prosecution version, respondent No.1 was a member of an unlawful assembly. He was armed with a gun at the time of occurrence. HP fired a shot at Riaz P.W. hitting him on the left loin region, a vital part of the body. The D.D.A. wrongly stated before the trial Court that no weapon of offence was recovered from the respondent. As a matter of fact, gun had been recovered from respondent No.1 on 24‑6‑1984 for which case F.I.R. No. 137 had been registered under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the case is fixed for trial and it is no stage for the cancellation of bail of the respondent No.1 because he would be handicapped in producing his defence. He further submits that only simple hurt had been attributed to the respondent No.1.
4. I have been taken through the F.I.R. of this case. I have also considered the contentions of the parties. Muhammad Ali respondent No.1 had fired a gunshot at Riaz P.W. hitting him on the vital part of the body. Although, the injury was simple in nature but the fact that respondent No.1 had fired a gunshot on the vital part of the body, could not be ignored. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not exercise the discretion judiciously. The petition is accepted and the bail of respondent No.1 is cancelled.
5. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Solicitor Government of the Punjab, for taking appropriate action against the D.D.A. who had made the wrong statement before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
6. This order shall be without prejudice to the merits of the case.
S. G. D. Bail cancelled.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer