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. 2837/B of 1985, decided on 2nd February. 1986.
--‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail, grant of Accused who was empty‑handed was only alleged to have held deceased in Japha and no injury was attributed to him‑‑Question as to whether accused shared common intention with his co‑accused who caused solitary fatal blow, held, needed' further inquiry‑‑Bail granted to accused in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem for Petitioner.
S.D. Qureshi for the State.
The petitioner alongwith Muhammad Tufail and Anwar stands charged with the murder of Murad deceased.
2. The prosecution case is that on 1‑9‑1985 Sarwar petitioner and Ghulam Abbas son of the deceased quarrelled with each other on the payment of ice cream (Kulfis). In the meantime, Muhammad. Tufail and Anwar co‑accused arrived there. The former carried a gun while the latter was armed with a Chhuri. On the Lalkara of Muhammad Tufail the petitioner left Ghulam Abbas P.W. and caught hold of his father Murad deceased while Anwar co‑accused inflicted a Chhuri blow on his abdomen which proved fatal. Muhammad Tufail co‑accused is said to be on bail.
The bail for Sarwar petitioner is claimed on the ground that he was empty‑handed and is only alleged to have held the deceased in Japha. It is further stated that he is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the prosecution has suppressed .the true facts and as a matter of fact the complainant party committed the aggression by causing injuries to the petitioner and his sister Mst. Aisha. Both were medically examined. Four injuries were found on the person of the petitioner while one injury was found on the person of his sister. Two of the injuries of the petitioner were on his head.
Learned counsel for the complainant and the State have opposed the bail. According to them he is not entitled to bail because he had facilitated the murder of the deceased.
The question as to whether the petitioner shared the common intention with Anwar co‑accused who caused the solitary fatal blow needs further inquiry. Accordingly. I admit Sarwar petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.25.000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sheikhupura.
H.A.R. Bail granted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer