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 Miscellaneous No.1110-B of 1987, decided on 19th April, 1987.
---S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S,302/34--Bail, grant of--First information report lodged with delay--Accused having no motive to murder deceased, rather complainant could be said to have motive for their false involvement in a case--Case against accused requiring further inquiry--Accused admitted to bail in circumstances.
Ch.Muhammad Hussain Chhahhar for Petitioner.
Inamul Islam Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing; 19th April, 1987.
Allah Ditta petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 302/34 PPC arising out of FIR No.261, dated 31-10-1986, registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara, seeks to be released on bail.
2. It has been alleged that on 31-10-1986, at 5,00 a.m. the petitioner armed with .12 bore gun accompanied by Sattar who too was armed with .12 bore gun and Niaz who was empty-handed entered into the Haveli of Muhammad Mansha where the latter was sleeping. Niaz co-accused removed the quilt from the face of Muhammad Mansha while the petitioner allegedly placed the barrel of his gun .on the head of Mansha and fired the same. Resultantly he died. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Sardar Ali, Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Yar.
As a result of police investigation the petitioner as also his co-accused have been found to be innocent. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner or h- co-accused, although they remained on physical remand for quite some time. The investigation conducted by the local police has been verified by the D.S.P. who has supported the finding of innocence recorded by the S.H.O.
At the time of trial, findings recorded by the police have no relevancy but such findings can be taken into consideration for purpose of bail.
3. It has been urged on behalf on the State that the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, wherein the petitioner and his co-accused have been specifically named and they have also been ascribed specific role.
The occurrence in. this case allegedly took place at 5.00 a.m. while the F.I.R. was lodged at 9.00 a.m. The intervening distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is only eight kilometers. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no time for the first informant for deliberation.
4. Regarding motive it has been alleged that previously Mian Khan, brother of the first informant was murdered by the accused party and subsequently they caused injuries with hatchets to Sher Ali, nephew of the first informant. In such state of affairs the B petitioner and his co-accused had no motive to murder the deceased, rather the complainant may be said to have motive for their false involvement.
5. In the above circumstances the case against the petitioner is of further enquiry falling within subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. He is, therefore, admitted to bail without prejudice to the merits of C the case, in the sum of Rs.30,000 (rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A . C . Okara.
M.Y.H./A-187/L Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer