Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

MUHAMMAD SADIQ versus THE STATE


Pakistan Penal Code Section 409/109 wheat stock witnesses were subjected to an identity parade in jail, but the magistrate who did the identification parade did not inspect the accused for the money recovered and by no means used wheat seeds. Is not associated with recovery of. Identifying the suspect from a warehouse did not have any relevance to the case that a recovery witness was incapacitated, and he was not involved in any way, while other recovery witnesses did not say that the recovery was presented. Nor did he mention the presence of the accused at the relevant time to prove that he was not a civil servant, there was no evidence to prove the accused accused of criminal misappropriation of the goods by him, instead But his conviction is not enough to convict the accused and bring him home if he is found guilty. On one hand

1987 M L D 1130

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J

MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others--Petitioners

Versus

THE STATE--Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1492-B of 1987, decided on 23rd May, 1987.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 324/325--Bail, grant of- Medico-legal report of accused placed on file showing that he suffered six injuries but same were not mentioned in first information report- Eye-witnesses named in first information report swore affidavit to the effect that on day of occurrence accused party was irrigating their land when complainant party started beating them; accused suffered injuries at hands of complainant party and in exercise of right of self-defence accused party caused injuries to members of complainant party--Offence with which accused charged not falling within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.--Accused admitted to bail in circumstances.

Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioners.

Muhammad Akram Nasir for the State.

ORDER

Muhammad Bashir and Nazir Ahmad petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and two other under sections 324 and 325/34, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution version is that on 17-3-1987 at 7.00 A.M. Muhammad Siddique and his brother Abdul Majid were irrigating their land when Nazir petitioner armed with a hatchet, Muhammad Bashir petitioner and co-accused Abdul Aziz and Charagh Din armed with Sotas came there and forcibly diverted the water to their own land. The complainant dissuaded them from doing so and told them that civil Court had already issued a stay order upon which they got infuriated and Muhammad Bashir petitioner gave a Sota blow to Abdul Majid hitting his rib on the left side and Nazir Ahmad gave a hatchet blow from the wrong side hitting his right leg. Thereafter Abdul Aziz and Charagh Din gave Sota blows to Abdul Majid, as a result of which, he fell down. Muhammad Siddique tried to rescue him but he also suffered injuries at the hands of the aforesaid accused persons. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Mushtaq and Abdul Karim who were working in the nearby fields.

3. Abdul Majid and Muhammad Siddique PWs were medically examined on the same day. Abdul Majid suffered 5 injuries out of which two were grievous. Muhammad Siddique suffered four injuries, all simple in nature caused by blunt weapon.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the F.I.R. was lodged 50 hours after the alleged occurrence, Muhammad Bashir petitioner suffered six 'injuries during the occurrence which have been completely suppressed in the F.I.R. and Abdul Karim, an independent witness, has sworn affidavit supporting the defence version. It is further submitted that case does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

I have given my careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. Medico-legal report of Muhammad Bashir petitioner has been placed on the file. It shows that he suffered six injuries. He was medically examined on the same day at 11.30 A.M. His injuries do not find any mention in the F.I.R. Abdul Karim who has been named as an eye-witness in the F.I.R has sworn affidavit to the effect that on the day of occurrence accused party was irrigating their land when the complainant party started beating them; Muhammad Bashir suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant-party and in exercise of right of self-defence accused party caused injuries to the members of the complainant-party. The offence with which the petitioners have been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of 86.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Okara.

M.Y.H/M-355/L Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
online advocate from Cherat lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.