Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1829‑B of 1985, decided on 2nd December, 1985.

‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 307, 148 & 149‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Accused party allegedly causing firearm injuries to complainant and prosecution witnesses‑‑Fire‑arm injuries suffered by two of accused persons suppressed by complainant in F.I.R.‑‑Bail sought on ground that complainant party were aggressors‑‑Question as to who was aggressor, held, was to be determined by trial Court on basis of evidence to be adduced at trial‑‑Accused not found to be entitled to bail on said ground.

‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 307, 148 & 149‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Two of accused allegedly giving firearm injuries to deceased and four of accused causing firearm injuries to prosecution witnesses‑ Bail refused.

‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 307, 148 & 149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Two of accused persons who were allegedly armed with Sotas not using same during occurrence‑‑One of accused allegedly firing with revolver ineffectively‑‑No overt act attributed to another accused‑‑Case of said four accused found to be distinguishable from other, accused who caused fire‑arm injuries to deceased and prosecution witnesses‑‑Case of accused, held, fell under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.‑‑Bail granted.

M . B . Zaman for Petitioners.

Mian Mushtaq Hussain for the State.

Raja Muhammad Anwar for the Complainant.

Abdul Shakur, Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Ashraf, Abdul Majid, Ghulam Rasul, Muhammad Khurshid, Muhammad Bashir, Abdul Razzaq, Yamin alias Teddy and Rehmat Ullah petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them under sections 148, 302 and 307/149, P.P.C.

The prosecution version is that on 18th March, 1985 at 4.30 p.m. Allah Rakha complainant, Khalil Ahmad, Vakil Ahmad, Ramzan, Muhammad Akbar, Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Siddiq were returning home from the places of their duties. When they reached the northern corner of their Chak, Ahmad, father of Allah Rakha first‑informant, met them. He had just started talking with them when Abdul Shakur, Muhammad Ashraf, Abdul Majid, Ghulam Rasul, Muhammad Khurshid, Abdur Razzaq and Yamin petitioners armed with guns, Muhammad Azam with a revolver, Bashir and Rehmat Ullah with Sotas, came out of a wheat‑field and started firing on them. The fires of Abdul Shakur and Ghulam Rasul hit Ahmad deceased on the forehead and collar‑bone, respectively. Ashraf fired at Muhammad Siddiq, Abdul Majid fired at Muhammad Akbar hitting his head, Abdur Razzaq fired at Abdul Sattar hitting his head, Muhammad Yamin fired at the first‑informant hitting his collar bone and right little finger. As a result of indiscriminate firing, Vakil and Khalil of the complainant party also suffered injuries. Muhammad Azam fired many shots with his revolver but no body was hit. Muhammad Sharif and Ghulam Qadir rescued the members of the complainant party from the accused persons. Ahmad, father of first informant, succumbed to his injuries at the spot.

Motive for the offence was that during the last general elections the complainant party and the accused persons had supported rival candidates. On the day of occurrence at 10/11 a.m. there was an altercation between the parties in the District Courts premises but the persons present there intervened and separated the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the accused armed with Sotas, namely, Rehmat Ullah and Bashir, are not alleged to have caused any injury to any one and only ineffective firing is attributed to Muhammad Azam petitioner. It was further argued that the firearm injuries on Yamin and Ghulam Rasul accused which have been suppressed in the F.I.R., indicate that the complainant party were the aggressors, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail.

Learned counsel for the State contended that the F.I.R. was lodged promptly within two hours without gaining any time for deliberation and all the petitioners are named therein with specific roles, therefore, no ground for bail is made out.

3. I have gone through the record and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The question as to who was the aggressor and who was the victim of assault will be determined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence to be adduced at the trial. Firearm injuries to the deceased have been attributed to Abdul Shakur and Ghulam Rasul petitioners. Muhammad Ashraf, Abdul Majid, Abdur Razzaq and Muhammad Yamin petitioners are alleged to have caused firearm injuries to the P.Ws. No ground of their enlargement on bail is made out.

Muhammad Bashir and Rehmat Ullah petitioners were armed with Sotas. There is no allegation that they used the Sotas during the occurrence. No overt act has been attributed to Muhammad Khurshid petitioner while Muhammad Azam petitioner is alleged to have fired revolver shots from a long distance which did not hit any body Their case is distinguishable from the aforementioned accused persons and falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. They are, therefore, admitted bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha.

H.A.K. Bail application partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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