Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1695/B of 1985, decided on 24th July, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307‑‑Bail‑‑Accused placed in column No. 2 by two Investigating Officers‑‑Three injured witnesses consistently implicated accused‑‑Accused named in F.I.R.‑ Particular accused having used hatchet from sharp side, held, no indulgence could be shown to him and although Investigating Officers had some authority to form opinion but, ipso dixit of police would not be all in context‑‑Bail to such accused was, therefore, refused.

Ghulam Rasul v. The State 1982 S C M R 440 and Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul, etc. 1985 S C M R 382 distinguished.

Mehdi Hussain Shah v. Malik Khizar Hayat Khan and others 1983 P Cr. L J 1601 ref.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307‑‑Bail‑‑Two accused armed with Sotas, causing simple injuries‑‑Among host of people attacking four injured, including deceased, held, it might not be possible to be sure as to whose Sota had landed where on persons of each of them which would remain to be ascertained by evidence‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances.

Aqil Mirza for Petitioners.

S.D. Qureshi for the State.

Bail is sought for the three petitioners Javaid lqbal, Ashraf and Liaqat Ali involved in a case in which one had to die and three had to suffer injuries both by blunt as also sharp‑edged weapons.

2. Mr. Aqil Mirza, Advocate, mainly stressed that they had been consistently placed in column No. 2 by two Investigating Officers and that by virtue of dictum laid down in Ghulam Rasul v. The State 1982 S C M R 440 and Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul, etc. 1985 S C M R 382, there being a definite conclusion by the Investigating Officers that there was no evidence to connect them with a non‑bailable offence, they were as a matter of right entitled to bail. According to his interpretation there was no discretion left with the High Court to refuse it.

3. I am afraid the things are not that simple as Mr. Aqil Mirza tried to put. All the three injured P.Ws. fully implicated the petitioners in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Those could not be ignored entirely. The petitioners were clearly named in the F.I. R. As it transpires, ten assailants including the present petitioners, all armed with hatchets, hockeys. Sotas and Dangs, etc. assailed the complainant party. The injuries on Barkat P.W. 'were also by a sharp‑edged weapon which ostensibly appeared to be the hatchets carried by Akhtar Ali co‑accused and the petitioner Ashraf Ali. No doubt, those were simple but the way the occurrence took place at midnight involving more than a dozen people, I don't think any indulgence could be shown to Ashraf Ali Petitioner who allegedly did not hesitate from using the hatchet from its sharp side. The rule laid down in the afore‑cited case could be distinguished. In Ghulam Rasul's case, after the death of the victim, A no injured witness was left to depose against him but in the present case, as many as three living P.Ws. implicated the petitioners quite consistently. This should ordinarily make the difference. So is the rule laid down in the other case of Ibrahim inapplicable to the facts of the present case. No doubt, the law gives some authority to the investigating Officers to form an opinion but the ipse dixit of the police is hot all in context. Mehdi Hussain Shah v. Malik Khizar Hayat Khan and others 1983 P Cr. L J 1601 may be seen. Ashraf Ali‑ petitioner does not deserve bail and the petition as on his behalf is dismissed.

4. However, the allegations against the other two petitioners, namely Javaid lqbal and Liaqat Ali for having caused simple injuries by Dandas/ Sotas remains to be yet ascertained by evidence. Among a host of people attacking the four injured including' the deceased, it may not be possible to be sure as to whose Danda/Sota has landed where on B the persons of each of them. This is something inescapable. I, therefore, feel that they have a little better case for bail. Accordingly, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a bond each in the sum of Rs.20,000 (rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties in the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Gujrat.

S. A. Bail 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.