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. 2113/13 of 1985, decided on 23rd September, 1985.
‑‑--S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Deceased allegedly having illicit relations with sister of accused‑‑Occurrence having taken place at night‑‑Dead body of deceased recovered from house of accused‑‑Plea of grave and sudden provocation‑‑Case being that of further inquiry, bail granted to accused, in circumstances.
Rehana and others v. The State 1984 S C M R 1557 and Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Rafiq and others 1982 S C M R 308 rel.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner.
S.M. Wahab for the State.
Date of hearing: 23rd September, 1985.
The petitioner alongwith his brother Sanatta stands charged with the murder of Bashir Ahmad on the night 10/11‑4‑1985.
2. The prosecution case is that the deceased was suspected of maintaining illicit intimacy with the sister and "Bhawaj" of the petitioner and on the night of occurrence Sanatta took him along to his house on the pretext of playing cards. After sometime the complainant heard noise from the house of the petitioner whereupon he alongwith others rushed to that place and found the deceased lying dead while Bashir Ahmad petitioner armed with a Chhuri and Sanatta armed with a hatchet were present there.
3. Bail is urged on the ground that it was highly improbable that the deceased would be invited by the petitioner to his house when he was suspected of maintaining illicit intimacy with their sister and other female relations. It is next contended that the very fact that it was a night occurrence and the dead body was recovered from the house of the petitioner lends corroboration to the petitioner's plea that he had acted under grave and sudden provocation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rehana and others v. The State 1984 S C M R 1557 where bail was granted by the Supreme Court in similar circumstances. He has also cited Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Rafiq and others 1982 S C M R 308 where bail granted by the High Court in similar circumstances was not interfered with by the Supreme Court.
In view of the circumstances narrated above, it appears to be a case of further inquiry. Accordingly, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
S.A. Bail accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer