Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Bail Application No. 687 of 1986, decided on 22nd October, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail‑‑Incident stated in First Information Report to be unwitnessed‑‑Eye‑witnesses in their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., which were recorded immediately after occurrence, not claiming to be eye‑witnesses of incident and not naming accused but only showing their suspicion against him‑‑Such position not denied by prosecution‑‑Case requiring further inquiry‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.
Ghulam Haider Memon for Petitioner.
Riaz Ahmed for the State.
Applicant Zahid is being tried for the murder of one Bashir Ahmad. The case under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered on 29‑4‑1986 at Police Station Tharoo Shah. Complainant Rasool Bux in the F.I.R. suspected the applicant, to have killed the deceased.
Mr. Ghulam Haider Memon argued that it is an unwitnessed incident and that after 15 days further statement of the complainant was recorded and the applicant has been involved. It is contended by the learned counsel that alleged three eye‑witnesses namely Dur Muhammad, Shahzad and Lal Bux in their earlier statements have not implicated the applicants but after 15 days their further statements were recorded in which they have stated that present applicant and one unknown caused injuries to the deceased, and they saw four culprits Mr. Riaz Ahmed appearing for the State has conceded to the grant of bail.
According to F.I.R. filed by Rasool Bux he found his son Bashir Ahmad dead in front of a shop having hatchet injuries: He has also stated that his brother Dur Muhammad P.W., Lal Bux and Shahzad went at the place of Vardat where so many people came. In that F.I.R. he has stated that incident was not witnessed by them. It is also argued by learned counsel that alleged three eye‑witnesses Dur Muhammad, Lal Bux and Shahzad in their 161, Cr.P.C. statements recorded immediately after the incident have not claimed to be the eye‑witnesses of the incident and not named the applicant as accused but only suspicion was shown. This position has not been denied by the learned State counsel. It was also argued that one Gul Hassan was also arrested and he was picked out in the identification parade. The allegation against Gul Hassan is that he also caused hatchet injuries to deceased. Gul Hassan has been admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Only evidence against applicant is that he has been implicated by complainant and the witnesses after 15 days of the incident claiming to be the eye‑witnesses. The alleged eye‑witnesses Dur Muhammad is brother of complainant and Shahzad is cousin while Lal Bux is also related to them. They are all are not eye‑witnesses according to the F.I.R. lodged by Rasool Bux.
For the reasons stated above the case requires further inquiry. The applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah.
M.Y.H./L‑7/K Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer