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. 3254/B of 1986, decided on 9th December, 1986.
--S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302--Bail, grant of--Admittedly petitioners not participating in actual occurrence--Petitioners allegedly interested in hand of girl of prosecution witness and asking co-accused to go to his Dera to ensure that her engagement did not take place--Case for enlargement of petitioners, held, made out, in circumstances- Petitioners allowed bail.
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Sardara and Murad petitioners have moved this petition for bail in case registered against them and others under sections 148, 302 and 307/149/109, P.P.C.
2. In the occurrence which took place on 23rd June, 1986 co-accused Manzur fired at Nazar Hayat deceased, as a result of which he died while Muhammad Iqbal suffered fire-arm injuries at the hands of Zafar Iqbal who was armed with a gun. The petitioners are not alleged to have participated in the actual occurrence and the allegation against them is that they alongwith Muhammad Khan had asked the other accused to go to the Dera of Lai Khan and ensure at all costs that the engagement of his daughter Mst. Shahnaz Bibi does not take place.
The motive for the occurrence is that the accused party wanted the hand of Mst. Shahnaz for Mumtaz son of Sardara but Nazar Hayat deceased had opposed this proposal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that according to the F .I . R. the only allegation against the petitioners was that they had asked the other accused to ensure that the engagement does not take place which does not in any way indicate that they had exhorted them to do away with the deceased, therefore, their case needs further inquiry. No body has appeared on behalf of the State to oppose the prayer for bail. Mr. Awais Nasim Advocate was present before the interval and was asked to appear at 11 a.m. but he has not turned up. His conduct is strongly disapproved.
4. The petitioners are not alleged to have participated in the actual occurrence. The only allegation against them is that they along with Muhammad Khan co-accused (since released on bail) had asked the other accused to go to the Dera of Lal Khan and ensure that the engagement of Mst. Shahnaz does not take place. In the circumstances, a case for their enlargement is made out. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot.
S.G.D. Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer