Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 730‑B/BWP of 1983, decided on 14th September, 1983.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner receiving as many as 21 injuries, caused with sharp and blunt weapons, during occurrence; cross‑complaint lodged against complainant‑party pending before Court of competent jurisdiction; petitioner caused no injury to deceased and attributed only ineffective firing at complainant‑ Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.

Mian Allah Nawaz for Petitioner.

Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for the State.

Sardar Ahmad Khan for the Complainant.

This is an application for bail on behalf of Amir Din petitioner in a case under section 302/436/34, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Taranda Muhammad Panah, vide F.I.R. No. 65/83, dated 30‑5‑1983.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 3 others in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Afzal Shah and set on fire Jhuggi of Ghulam Farid P.W. on 30‑5‑1383 at 7‑g0 p.m. in the area of Taranda Muhammad Panah. As for the petitioner it has been alleged that at the time of occurrence he was armed with pistol and fired ineffective shot at Rehmat Ali Shah complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tine occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution; that the accused party was in occupation of the disputed land and as such, the complainant party was aggressor and that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased.

As against this, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the plea for bail of the, petitioner or, the ground that the application for bail of co‑accused, namely, Hazoor Bakhsh and Muhammad Rizwan has already been rejected by my learned brother Manzoor Hussain Sial, J. on 15‑8‑1983; that the reasons given therein are equally applicable to the case of the petitioner; that the petitioner having come to the place of occurrence duly armed with a pistol and having ineffectively fired at the complainant has taken active part in the commission of the crime, lastly, that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record available before me I find that there is a dispute over the land between the parties; that the petitioner had filed a civil suit against the complainant party including Ghulam Farid P.W. before this occurrence; that the petitioner received as many as 21 injuries caused with sharp as well as blunt weapon during the occurrence that a cross complaint having been lodged against the complainant party is pending before a Court of competent jurisdiction, that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased; that the allegations against him are that of ineffective firing at complainant and that no doubt, the bail plea of the co‑accused has been rejected by my learned brother Manzoor Hussain Sial, J. but the case of the petitioner appears to be distinguishable inasmuch as the co‑accused namely Hazoor Bakhsh and Muhammad Rizwan had allegedly set the Jhuggi on fire

5. For what has been found above, without making any expression lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the question of the vicarious liability of the petitioner requires further enquiry. He is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C. /Duty Magistrate, Liaqatpur.

S.C.D. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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