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. 2924/B of 1988, decided on 10th November, 1986.
---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Bail, grant of--Petitioner, accused of murder, allegedly involved in five cases of theft, Zina, criminal intimidation and house-trespass, registered at various police stations declined bail.
Muhammad Iqbal v. The State P L D 1963 Lah. 279 ref.
Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Petitioner.
Dil Muhammad for the State.
The petitioner is involved in a case registered by the Police Station Sukheki, District Gujranwala vide F.I.R. No.117, dated 10-10-1985 under the provisions of section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. for the murder of one Irshad Hussain, the maternal-uncle of the complainant.
2. It was stated in the F.I.R. that Najeeb Ullah, Saif Ullah and Khizar Hayat all real brothers alongwith Muhammad Ilyas had abducted Irshad; Hussain in their car. This occurrence had taken place in the evening of 9th July, 1985 and according to the complainant, when on the next day, he was proceeding to the police station, he found the dead body of Irshad Hussain deceased on the bank of a canal.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the persons named in the F.I.R. were found innocent. During the investigation, six other persons including the petitioner were found guilty of the commission of offence. It was further argued that the petitioner deserves the grant of bail because the only incriminating evidence against him was the extra-judicial confession. The extra-judicial confession was also attacked by the learned counsel on the ground of being inadmissible, inasmuch, that the extra-judicial confession was made jointly by six persons, hence it had no evidentiary value.
4. Syed Jamsheed Ahmad, Advocate for the complainant vehemently argued, that the petitioner was an absconder and the submission of challan in this case was also delayed by other co-accused, because out of the six, two are still wanted by the police and the proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. are being initiated against the absconding co-accused. It was further argued that at least five other cases of theft, Zina-bil-jabr and criminal intimidation and house trespass, have been registered against the petitioner at various police stations. It was further urged that the grant of bail to the petitioner in the peculiar circumstances of the case would defeat the ends of justice.
After careful consideration of all the facie of the case, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Iqbal v. The State PLD 1963 Lah. 279 was observed by the Court as under:-----
"Persons who are desperate and feel they have nothing further to lose by committing more offences should not be allowed to be in a position to do so: This is the third requirement."
The case of the petitioner is covered by the observations made by this Court.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
S. A. Bail declined.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer