Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 525‑B of 1980, decided on 7th April, 1986.

‑---‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/324/188/148/149‑‑At bail stage Court has not to give any finding regarding merits of case and have to take prosecution case on its face value.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/324/188/148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No overt act was attributed to seven petitioners‑‑Only allegation against eighth petitioner was that he picked up a brick with which he injured a prosecution witness‑‑Cross‑case was also registered‑‑All accused in cross‑case have already been bailed out‑‑As petitioners have not been accused .of active participation in incident, they were found entitled to bail in circumstances.

Ch. Ghaus Muhammad and Mian Najam‑uz‑Zaman, Asstt. A.‑G. for Petitioner.

Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 7th April, 1986.

In a criminal case registered at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala, on 19‑8‑1985 at the instance of Nazeer Ahmad, 16 persons were named. Case was initially registered under section 307/324/188/ 148/149, P.P.C. but as Arshad the injured, died section 302, P.P.C. was added. The accused in this case have been applying for bail after arrest piecemeal. First application (Criminal Miscellaneous 2966‑B of 1985) was moved on behalf of Abdullah Khan son of Nawab Khan. He was admitted to bail by my order, dated 15‑12‑1985. This was followed by Criminal Miscellaneous 131‑B‑16 on behalf of Zulfiqar and Arshad. These two were allowed bail on my order, dated 18‑2‑1986. After these two applications had been disposed of it so appears that the accused felt encouraged and moved three different applications.

2. Criminal Miscellaneous 525‑B of 1985 is on behalf of Shukar Din, Sanaullah and Riaz. The second one (Criminal Miscellaneous 607‑B of 1986) is on behalf of Salahuddin son of Muhammad Malik and Khadim Hussain, Advocate son of Abdullah and third application Criminal Miscellaneous 655‑B of 1986 is on behalf of Akbar, Amjad, Nasarullah and Muhammad Fazal. All the petitioners in these different applications are involved in one and the same case and there is one F.I.R. Instead of passing separate order I am going to decide all these applications by means of this order.

3. At first I take up case of Shukar Din, Sanaullah and Riaz. In support of their application, learned counsel submitted that no overt act had been attributed to the petitioners. They did not cause any injury to anybody.

Learned counsel submitted that according to F.I.R. Shukar Din was empty‑handed. Though the remaining two petitioners were alleged to be armed with Sotas yet there was no allegation against them that they actually used Sotas and caused any injury to anybody.

4. Criminal Miscellaneous 607‑B of 1986. In this case Salahuddin was empty‑handed. Allegation against him is that he picked up a brick with which he injured one of the prosecution witnesses. Khadim Hussain, an Advocate, was armed with .12 bore gun. But before proceeding further, I would like to observe that learned counsel withdrew his (Khadim Hussain) application for bail. Hence his application is dismissed as withdrawn.

5. Criminal Miscellaneous 655‑B of 1986. All the petitioners in this application were empty‑handed and they caused no injury to the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact no specific role had been attributed to them. According to the learned counsel they caused no injury to anybody. I have also heard learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant. Inspector Crimes Branch was also present with record. State counsel and the counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the mere fact that some of the petitioners were empty‑handed did not matter much. They were members of unlawful assembly who laid in ambush and injured Arshad, who ultimately died. All the accused, therefore, had the common intention and the common object and are not entitled to the concession of bail.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that numerous times investigation had changed hands. Most of the times it was at the instance of the accused party. The latest position is that the investigation has been entrusted to the Crimes Branch. The accused have again obstructed the investigation with the result that it is standstill.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the parties had strained relations. There was political rivalry between them. At this stage I am not going to give any finding with regard to the merits of the case. I have to take the prosecution case on its face value and have to consider the points urged by the counsel for the State as well as by the learned counsel for the complainant. I am least concerned with any political consideration. I have to go by the law, by the prosecution case, by the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and arguments of the Advocate for the State for the complainant. These have been taken into consideration. The points urged by the counsel for the petitioners in support of the three applications and the part assigned to them have not been controverted either by the counsel for the State or for the complainant. There is a cross‑case as well. In that all the accused have been bailed out.

9. In view of the fact that the petitioners have not been accused of active participation in the alleged incident, I allow bail to all of them in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Gujranwala.

H.A.K. Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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