Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 573‑B of 1986, decided on 5th April, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307/148/149 a 325‑‑Bail‑‑Bail sought on ground that since all injuries were on non‑vital parts of body case would fall under S. 325, P.P.C‑‑No comment, held, was possible on such aspect of case at bail stage.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/148/149‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Injured witness suffering 17 injuries out of which five were grievous‑‑Injuries attributed to each accused were found grievous‑ Accused were not found entitled to bail in circumstances.

S.M. Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.

Ch. Riasat Ali for the Complainant.

Sohail Akhtar for the State.

Date of hearing: 5th April, 1986.

The petitioners alongwith 5 others are charged with murderously assaulting Iqbal P.W. on 11‑7‑1985 with sticks and gun shots. Mumtaz and Dari petitioners were allegedly armed with Sotas while Umra carried a gun. All of them are alleged to have taken part in the occurrence by causing injuries to Muhammad Iqbal with their respective weapons. The injuries attributed to them were found grievous in nature. They had been earlier allowed bail by the learned trial Magistrate but the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha on an application moved by the complainant cancelled their bail.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is stated that the part assigned to Mumtaz petitioner is identical to that of Muhammad Afzal who was admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Judge and as such on the rule of consistency he had 'been rightly granted bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that his case was distinguishable because he (Afzal) was found innocent during the investigation and it was on that basis he was allowed bail.

3. A total. number of 17 injuries were found on the person of Iqbal P.W. of which 5 were grievous. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that since all the injuries were on non‑vital parts of the body the case would fall under section 325, P.P. C. I am afraid if any comment is possible on this aspect of the case at this stage. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries suffered by Muhammad Iqbal P.W. and the part attributed to each of the petitioners, I do not consider them entitled to bail. Their bails were, therefore, rightly cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge. The application is dismissed accordingly.

H.A.K. 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.