Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 958 of 1985, decided on 30th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/148/149‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11‑ Cancellation of bail‑‑Three accused not named in F.I.R. which was lodged by injured witness himself‑‑Police was not getting said accused persons identified by witness in any identification parade‑‑Fourth accused was not attributed any injury either to deceased or to any of witnesses nor was he attributed any role in abduction of abductee in F.I.R.‑‑Factum of attribution of specific role to fourth accused by witnesses in their subsequent statements under Ss. 161 is 164, Cr.P.C., held, made out case of fourth accused of further inquiry‑‑Exercise of‑discretion in allowing bail to such accused not found to be improper‑‑Cancellation of bail refused.

Sultan Alam for Petitioner.

Asif Saeed Khosa for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

Tasaddaq Hussain Gilani, Assistant Advocate‑General for the State.

Date of hearing: 30th October, 1985.

This is petition by Allah Wasaya complainant for cancellation of bail against Neka, Muhammad Iqbal, Ghulam Rasool and Akbar Ali accused who are facing trial in a case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. and section 11 of Ordinance No. VIL of 1979 for the murder of Zahoor Ahmad and for causing injuries to Allah Wasaya petitioner, Ghulam Rasool, Sharif Shakar and of Mst. Sarwar Mai P. Ws. They were also charged for the abducton Mst. Amiran. The allegation against them is that they alongwith other accused on 4‑7‑1984, at 12‑30 a.m. (mid‑night) forcibly abducted Mst. Amiran and when the witnesses tried to rescue her, they injured the above‑mentioned persons and murdered Zahoor Ahmad.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record, Muhammad Iqbal, Ghulam Rasool and Akbar Ali P.Ws. were not named in the F.I.R. which was lodged by Allah Wasaya petitioner, himself an injured eye‑witness. It is correct that in the F.I.R. it was stated by him that besides the named accused, there were 8/10 other accused also alongwith them. The police did not get these three accused identified by the witness in any test identification parade which in my view, was necessary even if the accused were previously known to the witnesses. Neka accused was not attributed in F.I.R. any injury either to the deceased or to any of the witnesses during the occurrence nor was he attributed any role in the abduction of Mst. Amiran. If the witnesses have given him specified role in their subsequent statements before the police or statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., then also that fact would make out the case of Neka accused to be that of further inquiry. I do hot find anything to conclude that the exercise of discretion in allowing bail to the four respondents was improper. This petition is accordingly dismissed.

H.A.K. Cancellation of bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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