Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 99‑B of 1986, decided on 1^st April, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/34‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Additional Sessions Judge cancelling bail granted to accused by the Magistrate‑‑‑ Reasoning of Magistrate that injured witness had suffered injuries on non‑vital parts was incorrect‑‑Injury on abdomen and that too a grievous, held, could not be termed to be on non‑vital part Other ground that case was of two versions not possessed any weight as dimension of injury suffered by accused and time taken by accused for medical examination indicated that same was not suffered by accused in same occurrence‑‑Narration of F.I.R. showing highhandedness on part of accused‑‑Order of cancellation of bail did not call for any interference‑‑No good ground for grant of bail was made out even after cancellation of bail‑‑Bail refused.

Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.

Azmat Dad for the State.

Raja Mahmud Akhtar for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 1^st April, 1986.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered at Police Station Piplan, District Mianwali under section 307/34, P.P.C. on 10‑9‑1985 at 12‑45 p.m. (mid‑night). The occurrence is stated to have taken place the same night at 12‑15 a.m.

2. The petitioner was arrested on 10‑9‑1985. He was released on bail vide order of the Magistrate, dated 30‑11‑1985. He was again taken into custody on his bail having been cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge on a petition moved for cancellation by the complainant, on 7‑1‑1986.

3. According to the F.I.R. petitioner had gone to the hotel of Muhammad Usman complainant where his brothers Raza Muhammad and Amir Muhammad, who are his partners, were also present. After having taken food, the petitioner left the hotel without paying the bill. He again came to the hotel accompanied by an unknown person, and asked for drinks. On having drunk two bottles, he again moved for going away without paying the bill, whereupon Raza Muhammad brother of the complainant pressed for the payment, on which the petitioner abused him and told that he has never paid the bill and that he will teach him a lesson for demanding the bill; simultaneously he brought out a knife and stabbed Raza Muhammad in abdominal region. The second blow was given under the right armpit. Some more injuries were caused by the petitioner on the right thigh and right shoulder. When the complainant stepped ahead to save his brother, he was also given injury on the left shoulder.

4. Raza Muhammad was removed to the hospital. He was medically examined at 1‑55 a.m. The doctor noted 5 injuries on his person. He found the intestines protruding out from the stab wound in abdomen, below the umblicus This injury was declared grievous while the rest were declared simple. Muhammad Usman complainant was also found to have suffered one injury.

5. Motive for the occurrence was that the petitioner earlier had forcibly taken away Muhammad Munir, a nephew of the complainant and had released him on having received a ransom of Rs.600 while issuing threats that if the matter is reported, he will take the life of someone of them.

6. The complainant expressed suspicion that the petitioner had come to know about the report made by Raza Muhammad, father of Muhammad Munir, against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was also medically examined and was found to have suffered a stab wound but the F.I.R. does not contain any explanation of that injury. Learned counsel contended that a case of two versions, thus, appears to have been made out. In this connection he referred to order of grant of bail by the learned Magistrate wherein the learned Magistrate while granting bail has observed that because of the petitioner having been found injured, it was a case of two versions. Learned counsel contended that the ground on which the learned Magistrate had granted bail, is still available to the petitioner but the learned Additional Sessions Judge whimsically set aside the order passed by the Magistrate.

8. I have gone through the medico‑legal examination of the complainants and that of the petitioner as well. I have also perused the orders of the lower Courts in the light of contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The Magistrate granted bail to the petitioner on two grounds, firstly that it was a case of two versions and thus of further enquiry and secondly that Raza Muhammad had received injuries on non‑vital parts. The reasoning of the Magistrate that Raza Muhammad had suffered injuries on non‑vital parts, is obviously misplaced. The injury on the abdomen, and that too a grievous stab wound, cannot be termed in any manner to be on non‑vital part. The other ground taken by the Magistrate and the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a case of two versions, again does not appear to possess any weight. The petitioner was medically examined on 10‑9‑1985 at 5‑30 a.m. Learned counsel has not contested the time of occurrence. If that was the place and time where the petitioner had suffered injury, there was no reason for him to have waited till 5‑30 a.m.

10. The dimension of injury and the time taken by the petitioner, are factors which have weighed with me to consider that the petitioner might not have suffered injury in the said occurrence.

11. The narration of the events given in the F.I.R. shows high handedness on petitioner's part. According to the counsel for the complainant a case has already been registered against the petitioner for the earlier occurrence, referred to as motive.

12. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelling bail of the petitioner, does not call for any interference. Even thereafter no good grounds appear to have been made out for releasing the petitioner on bail. There is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.

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.