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. 1610‑B of 1984/BWP, decided on 18th March, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 148/302/307/149‑‑Vicarious liability‑‑Five accused and nine other co‑accused participating in occurrence‑‑Two of five accused not attributed any injury to deceased‑One was attributed Sota blow to witness though armed with hatchet‑‑Both these accused assigned hatchet blows to witness‑‑Witness found having only one injury‑‑Question of participation and their vicarious liability, held, required further inquiry‑‑Accused allowed bail in circumstances.
Sardar Ahmad Khan for Petitioners.
M. Asif Khan for the Complainant.
M.M.A. Prizada for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th March, 1985.
This application by Ghulam Rasool, Ghulam Sarwar, Ghulam Farid Muhammad Akram and Saidu petitioners is for bail in case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar, Khanpur vide. F.I.R. No. 151/84 dated 26‑5‑1984.
2. Learned counsel has not pressed for the bail of Ghulam Sarwar, Ghulam Rasool and Saidu.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and nine others in furtherance of their common object variously armed launched murderous assault and thereby caused the death of four persons namely Ghulam Mustafa, Abdur Rahim, Azmatullah and Bashir Ahmad and injuries to seven P.Ws. As for the petitioners it has been stated that they caused simple injuries to Abdul Hamid and Bungul P.Ws. Out of the fourteen accused persons, Khuda Bakhsh and Ghulam Rasool also received injuries in the occurrence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the participation of Ghulam Farid and Muhammad Akram appears to be highly doubtful and as such they are entitled to the concession of bail. Conversely the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the plea for the bail of Ghulam Farid and Muhammad Akram petitioners on the ground that the provisions of section 149 ,P.P.C in the circumstances of the case stand clearly attracted to their case.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Ghulam Farid and Muhammad Akram did not cause any injury to the deceased. According to the F.I.R. Ghulam Farid was armed with hatchet but he did not cause injury with the hatchet and allegedly gave Sota blow on the person of Abdul Hamid P.W. and that it is not known as to how the Sots came in his hands. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that Akram and Ghulam Farid had given hatchets blows on the head of Bangul P.W. whereas the Medical evidence shows only one sharp‑edged injury on his head, a so it cannot be said with certainty as to who out of the two, actually caused head injury. Without making any expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case. I am of the view that the question of the participation of Ghulam Farid and Muhammad Akram in the occurrence and their vicarious liability requires further inquiry. They are, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate. Rahim Yar Khan. The application to the extent of Ghulam Sarwar, Ghulam Rasool and Saidu petitioner is dismissed as having not been pressed.
S.A. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer