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. 496 of 1985, decided on 9th September, 1985.
‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Petitioner attributed a gunshot injury to complainant on back of his left leg‑‑Besides fire‑arm injury medical evidence indicated that complainant also sustained five blunt and hard substance injuries although in F.I.R. no allegation made that accused were armed with Lathis or they caused Lathi injuries to complainant‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.
Criminal Petition No. K‑58 of 1984 rel.
Abdul Hakim H. Bijarani for Applicant.
Zawar Hussain Jafri, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 9th September, 1985.
Mullan son of Ali Bux has applied for bail in a case which is registered against him alongwith others under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. and 13‑D, Arms Ordinance.
2. The allegation against the present applicant in the F.I.R. is that he fired on the complainant which hit him on the back of left foot. The allegation prima facie finds support from the medical evidence which shows that one of the six injuries suffered by the respondent was a lacerated punctured wound 1 c.m. x diameter which could be caused by fire‑arm. However, the medical evidence also shows that besides the fire arm injuries there were five other injuries on the person of the complainant which were caused by blunt and hard substance. There is no allegation in the F.I.R. that any of the accused persons were armed with Lathi or that they caused Lathi injuries to the complainant. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed before me a photostat copy of Criminal Petition No. K‑58 of 1984 in which two persons were granted bail by the Supreme Court on consideration that the post‑mortem examination of the deceased not only shows pellet injuries which were allegedly caused by the petitioner but it also showed three hatchet injuries which were not mentioned in the F.I.R. The case relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant fully supports his contention in the present case and I see no reason to refuse bail to the present applicant whose case is on a better footing than the above case. I accordingly, admit the accused to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety and P.R. bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
S.G.D./M‑35/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