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. 3151/B of 1986, decided on 6th December, 1986.
---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471--Bail, grant of--Previous bail application, refused on material supplied by police- Material supplied by Police later found relating to brother of accused- Accused not charged with any offence falling within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.--Criminal liability on account of conduct of brother, held, could not be taken into consideration to burden accused--Bail allowed to accused in circumstances.
Ch. Irshad Ahmed Malik for Petitioner.
Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the State.
This application has been moved on the ground that previously bail was refused to the petitioner who was reported against vide F.I.R. No. 56, dated 17-2-1986 for offences under section 420/468/471, P.P.C., Police Station Sadar Jhang on the basis of information supplied to this Court which lacked factual basis.
2. I have perused para. 3 of my order dated 15-7-1986 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1815/B of 1986 and I find that it has been mentioned that the Investigating Officer is present with the record and he has given a list of the cases registered against the petitioner which are still pending trial. These cases are F.I.R. No. 149, dated 17-6-1978 P.S. Sadar Jhang under section 363/366/376, P.P.C. F.I.R. No. 444, dated 18-12-1977 P.S. Saddar Jhang under section 411, P.P.C., F.I.R. No. 274, dated 13-11-1974 P.S. SaddarJhang under-section 411, P.P.C., F.I.R. No. 444, dated 18-11-1977 P.S. Saddar Jhang under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
3. I have asked the learned counsel for the State as well as the Investigating Officer who also appeared in the previous bail application that whether the information supplied which led to my conclusion in refusing bail to the petitioner are correct or not. It has been frankly conceded before me that there was no intention of making false statement, but it may be due to inadvertence or misunderstanding. Today, the Investigating Officer informed that the offences, details of which are given in para. 2, relate to the brother of the petitioner /accused. The Investigating Officer also states that petitioners brother namely Muhammad Hafeez is a desperado and he repeatedly and forcibly continues to cultivate the land in dispute despite the fact that he has legally been evicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction as a tenant.
Muhammad Saeed a brother of the petitioner as well as of the other alleged absconding accused is present and he states that whatever is being alleged is not true, but all the same such acts will not be repeated.
4. I can visualise no scope in law for burdening a person with criminal liability on account of conduct of his brother unless he is privy to abets or conspires for commission of that offence.
5. A bail granting order is not stricto senso a judgment. In the changed circumstances and the fact that the material supplied by the' police do not relate to the petitioner and since the petitioner is not charged with any offence which falls within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C., he is granted bail in the sum of Rs.15,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sadar Jhang, pending trial.
S. A. Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer