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. 639 of 1984, decided on 12th November, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Both petitioner and absconding co‑accused firing shots with their respective guns at complainant but a single injury caused to him‑‑Injury sustained by complainant although grievous yet not on vital part of body nor such injury specifically attributed to petitioner‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.
Abdul Hameed Bijarani for Applicant.
Sharfuddin Ada for the State.
Date of hearing: 12th November, 1986.
The applicant Ahmed is facing trial for an offence punishable under sections 148 and 307/149, P.P.C. and 13‑D, Arms Ordinance in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot. It is alleged that he, accompanied by Hasoo, Mahar, Farid and Gulab made murderous assault on the complainant Behram and his brother Hurran at their fields on 22‑5‑1984 at about 11 a.m. It is further alleged that the applicant and Hassoo made firing from their guns at the complainant Behram and the complainant Behram was actually shot at. The report of the incident was made at Police Station Buxapur on the same day and it was registered as Crime No. 48 of 1984.
2. The applicant and three co‑accused filed bail application in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot. The application was dismissed in respect of the applicant, who is alleged to have made firing at the complainant from a gun, while bail was granted to the co‑accused Fareed, Gulab and Mahar, whom no overt act has been attributed. The fifth co‑accused Hassoo is allegedly absconding.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the prosecution case is that the applicant and the absconding accused Hassoo has made firing at the complainant Behram and Horan but the medical certificate shows that the complainant Behram had sustained two fire‑arm injuries. One of them being entry wound and other exit wound and he must have sustained the two injuries from one shot and it is uncertain as to whose shot had hit him. He has also urged that the injuries sustained by the complainant Behram were not on the vital part of his body.
4. On the other hand learned Advocate for the State has opposed the application contending that the fire‑arm injuries sustained by the complainant Behram have been classified to be grievous. He has cited two cases reported in 1983 P Cr. L J at pages 2431 and 2529 wherein bail was refused to offenders who had been attributed fire‑arm injuries.
5. Prosecution case is that the complainant and Horan were shot by the applicant and that absconding accused Hassoo from guns and only the complainant Behram was actually hit. It appears from the medical evidence that the injuries sustained by the complainant Behram have been caused from one shot. It is not specifically alleged that the injuries sustained by him were caused from the shot fired by the applicant. The injuries sustained by the complainant, although grievous in nature, were on non‑vital part of his body. As the case stands, the injuries sustained by the complainant are not specifically attributed to the applicant. He is, therefore, entitled to grant of bail. Bail is granted in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot.
S.G.D./A‑15/K Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer