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.1 of 1987 in Criminal Appeal No.230 of 1984, decided on 23rd May, 1987.
---S.426(1-A) (c)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.148, 307 &302/149- Sentence, suspension of--One of accused said to have caused no injury to either ' of deceased while other was not stated to have caused any fatal injury--Other accused allegedly caused injury with wrong side of hatchet but recovery of hatchet from him had not even been believed by trial Court--Accused remaining in jail for more than two years from date of arrest to date of sentence--Held, accused could not be refused relief of bail available to them under statutory provisions--Bail granted.
Muhammad Din and another v. The State 1986 S C M R 1970(1) rel
Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khosa for Petitioners.
Tassadaq Hussain Jilani, Asstt. A.-G. for the State.
M. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah for the Complainant.
--The two petitioners Abdul Ghafoor s/o Khair Muhammad and Abdul Sattar s/o Ghulam Qadir alongwith four others were tried under Sections 148, 307, 302/ 149 PPC for double murder of Naurang and Murid Hussain and causing injuries on the P. Ws. Their co-accused were found guilty and sentenced to death but the petitioners were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine, etc. by the learned Additional Sessions 'Judge, D.G. Khan vide order dated 20-10-1984. They have applied for bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner Abdul Ghafoor had caused no injuries to either of the deceased nor had Abdul Sattar petitioner caused fatal injury to the deceased Murid Hussain. It was also submitted as regards the latter i.e. Abdul Sattar that the allegation against him was that he had caused injury with the wrong side of the hatchet but the recovery of hatchet from him had not even been believed by the learned trial Court. It was finally submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 3-10-1982 and were sentenced on 20-10-1984. More than 2 years have gone by and the petitioners are entitled to bail under the Statutory provisions of Section 426(1-A) (c) Cr.P.C.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General and the learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that the petitioners have been found guilty of having committed double murder and are not entitled to bail.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find no reason to refuse relief available to the petitioners under the Statutory provisions. Reference may be made to Muhammad Din and another v. The State (1986 S C M R 1970 (1)). In this view of the matter the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, D.G. Khan.
M.Y.H./A-180/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