Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 612 of 1986, decided on 13th November, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 307, 147, 142, 149, 324, 323, 504 & 114‑‑Bail‑‑Case and counter‑case registered against parties‑‑Which party was aggressor and whether there was false implication of accused due to influence of complainant with police were questions which were yet to be considered at trial‑‑Case requiring further inquiry‑‑Interim bail confirmed.

Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali 1972 S C M R 682; Muhammad Shafi v. Hakim Ali and others 1978 S C M R 346; Amir v. The State P L D 1972 S C 277; Muhammad Shafiq and 2 others v. The State 1982 P Cr. L J 91 and Muhammad v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 205 ref.

Qurban Ali Chohan for Applicants.

S. Sarfraz Ahmed, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.

The two petitioners Mir Hassan and Muhammad Bux Khoso are present in the Court today. They have applied through this petition for pre‑ arrest bails and they are accused in the case under sections 307, 147, 142, 149, 326, 323, 504 and 114, P.P.C. Interim bail was granted to them, vide order, dated 28‑9‑1986.

Incident took place on 25‑5‑1986 at 7‑30 p.m. F.I.R. as lodged by Sher Afzal. According to F.I.R. the complainant is owner of buses which ply between Karachi and Mirpur Khas. The complainant was at his house and his brother Mir Afzal and Khurshid were also at his house. His drivers Hanif and Maqbool came to the house and told him that when the turn of token came the president of the workers Union Aurangzeb and Secretary Idris told them that the bus No. 839‑994 would not leave with its number and bus of Councillor Sultan would leave at that time, and as such "they have not allowed the drivers to put their buses according to the number:" The complainant, his brother Mir Afzal and Khurshid came together at the bus stand where Aurangzeb, Idris, Sultan Councillor Ilyas, the two petitioners, Ali Mardan, Khanan Rashid Khan and Yousif were sitting. The petitioners were armed with hatchets, Aurangzeb, Sultan, Ali Mardan, Idris, Rashid, Baboo alias Fazaldad were armed with pistols and revolvers, Ilyas was armed with .12 bore gun and Yousif with a Lathi. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that Aurangzeb and Idris incited the accused standing there to attack and not to spare and kill them. At his instigation all the accused by forming an unlawful assembly, attacked and Ilyas fired his gun direct at my brother Mir Afzal which hit him on his left hip. Ali Mardan fired from his pistol at Muhammad Afzal which hit him on his right upper arm. Mir Hassan petitioner gave sharp‑edged hatchet blow to Khurshid on his head. Petitioner Muhammad Khoso gave sharp‑edged hatchet blow to Ali Afzal Khanan gave sharp side edged hatchet blows to Ali Afzal Yousif Ali gave Lathi blows to Ghulam Muhammad. On account of blows, all of them fell down. Then Mir Hassan gave sharp side hatchet blows, to Sardar on his head, and he too fell down. Thereafter, all the. accused gave kick and fists blows. Out of fear the complainant raised cries. whereupon Khushal Khan, Sadiq and others standing at the bus‑stand collected there and they intervened and rescued them from the accused complainant and injured Mir Afzal, Khurshid, Sardar, Ghulam Muhammad, Ali Afsar appeared to the police station where he filed F.I.R.

A counter‑case was registered against the complainant party fifteen minutes late at 8‑30 p.m., at the same police station.

Mr Qurban Ali Chohan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that on the basis of F.I.R. and the material available on record it can not be said with certainty at this stage which of the two parties were aggressors and who exceeded the right of the private defence. His contention is that due to counter versions the case becomes one of further enquiry. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on three judgments of Supreme Court in Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali 1972 S C M R 682. Muhammad Shafi v. Hakim Ali and others 1972 S C M R 346, Amir v. The State P L D1972 S C 277. The learned counsel has also relied on the two judgments of this Court, Muhammad Shafiq and 2 others v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 91, Muhammad v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 205. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners clearly support him.

The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners implication is mala fide with ulterior motives of getting them humiliated and disgraced and put them under mental and physical tortures.

The learned Assistant Advocate‑General does not oppose the petition for bail.

In the present case, it is shown that the two petitioners are friends of the co‑accused Aurangzeb who is President and Idris who is Secretary of the Union and the petitioners have no concern with any transport‑business and their implication is mala fide due to the implication of the complainant with police. I do not like to discuss the merits of the case but suffice to say there will be a serious question for consideration at the trial as to which party was aggressor and the mala fide and false implication due to influence of the complainant with police, therefore, it is a case of further enquiry.

For the facts and reasons stated above, interim bail granted earlier is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The above are the reasons of a short order, dated 13‑11‑1986 passed by me after conclusion of the

arguments.

M.Y.H./M‑47/K Interim bail confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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