Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3123/13 of 1985, decided on 19th June, 1986.

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/148/149 & 307‑‑Bail‑ Accused named in first information report wherein he was also shown as member of unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapon which he actually used‑‑Bail refused.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/148/149 & 307‑‑Bail‑‑Mere fRct that prosecution witness received simple injuries, held, would not entitle accused to concession of bail.

Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner.

Farooq Bedar, A.A.‑G. for the State.

Iftikhar, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Hussain, Khalid, Mansha and Ghulam Qadir are involved in a case in which Bashir Ahmad and his son Muhammad Arshad were killed while Zake Ullah, another son, was injured. The occurrence took place on 10‑5‑1985. The report was lodged by Irshad Begum, widow of Bashir Ahmad.

According to the prosecution, all the accused, except Ghulam Qadir who had a rifle, armed with guns attacked the aforesaid three persons. Muhammad Aslam opened the attack. He fired a shot at Muhammad Bashir, who was hit in the chest. Muhammad Hussain, brother of Aslam, fired at Muhammad Arshad. He was hit on the face. The third shot was fired by Khalid. It hit Arshad below the chest on the left side. Thereafter, all the accused fired indiscriminately. Their shots hit Bashir and Arshad. They fell down and died at the spot.

Zaka Ullah tried to escape. Mansha, Ghulam Qadir and Iftikhar caught hold of him and gave injuries to him with the Butts of their guns.

Iftikhar applied for bail after arrest before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. The application was dismissed by order dated 4‑12‑1985.

Hence this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that though the petitioner was alleged to have fired with gun, yet no specific injury had been attributed to him so far as the two deceased were concerned. He submitted that the injuries of Zaka Ullah were simple.

Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had no motive.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Muhammad Nazir v. The State 1984 S C M R 206 and Walayat and another v. The State 1984 S C M R 530.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and have also gone through the case‑law. At this stage the only material available for deciding this petition is the First Information Report. In this the petitioner has been named. He was member of unlawful assembly and was armed with a deadly weapon which he actually used. This is no stage to consider the case of the petitioner independently and separately from the other accused. That will have to be seen by the trial Court when the evidence is recorded.

The mere fact that the injured P.W. received simple injuries does not entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail.

The cases relied upon by the learned counsel are distinguishable and are of no help to him.

There is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.

However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible, under intimation to the Registrar of this Court, because I understand that the challan has already been submitted.

M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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