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. 1165‑B of 1984, decided on 2nd December, 1984.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner not named in F.I.R. nor shown to have any connection with nominated co‑accused nor any incriminating articles recovered at his instance‑ Question as to whether from description mentioned in F.I.R. prosecution witnesses could identify petitioner requiring consideration‑‑Held: A case of further inquiry, in circumstances‑‑Petitioner allowed bail.
M. Sultan Alam for Petitioner.
Malik Niaz Muhammad Bodla for the State.
The petitioner alongwith two others stands charged with the murder of Shamir deceased taking place in the early hours of 1‑2‑1984.
The motive for the offence was that 2 days before the occurrence goats of Jaffar had damaged the wheat field of the deceased. The latter admonished him which led to the occurrence. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but was later on identified in the identification parade held in the jail.
2. Bail is urged on the ground that the petitioner was arrested on 4‑3‑1984 and before the holding of the identification parade was brought out from the jail and shown to the P.Ws. He submitted an application to this effect to Ghulam Farid Langarial, M.I.C. on 10‑3‑1984. According to the Magistrate there was no order for his production before the Court on 10‑3‑1984 and probably due to some misunderstanding he had been produced before him. Even during the identification parade the petitioner had objected that he had been shown to the witnesses previously in the police station as also in the Court. The witnesses who identified the petitioner did not make any statement before the Magistrate nor attributed any part to him. Jaffar co‑accused who is named in the F.I.R. is in the judicial lock up and has not applied for bail.
3. The petitioner is not shown to hove any connection with Jaffar co‑accused nor has any incriminating article been recovered at his instance. The question as to whether from the description mentioned in the F.I.R. the P.Ws. could be in a position to identify the petitioner requires consideration.
Keeping in view the above circumstances, it appears to be 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 A.C., Multan.
S.G.D Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer