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. 2322-B of 1986, decided on 4th October, 1986.
--S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860). Ss, 302 &307/34---Bail grant of ---Local police finding accused involved in crime-----Deputy Superintendent of police in re-investigation finding complainant party to be aggressors-----Another Deputy Superintendent of Police disagreeing with him ---Superintended of Police (Investigation) on further investigation finding complainant party as aggressors---held finding of police officer though not binding on Courts would be relevant circumstance in bail matter Concurrent findings of two senior Police Officers holding complainant to be aggressor would entitle accused to grant of bail.
Masaud Mirza for petitioners .
Muhammad Sharif Butt for the State.
Muzamil khan and Muhammad Khan petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and another under sections 302 and 307 P.P.C. read with section 34 P.P.C. The facts of the case need not be narrated as the same have been detailed in my order stated 2nd April 1986 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 454-B of 1986, by aforesaid order Nazar Khan co-accused was allowed bail but the prayer of Muhammad Khan petitioner was declined.
2. The fresh ground urged for bail by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police has affirmed the finding of D.S.P. Kotwali Faislabad that the complainant party were the aggressors and has opined that Muhammad Asghar complainant should be challaned under section 307 P.P.C. Learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer of bail. He stated that a specific role has been attributed to the petitioners therefore, no ground for the grant of bail is made out.
3. I have gone through the record and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Firstly, the case was investigated by the local police. The petitioners were found involved in the crime. Thereafter D.S.P. Kotwali Faisalabad conducted the investigation and made a recommendation that a cross-case should be registered against the complainant party. He came to the conclusion that in fact the deceased and Muhammad Asghar complainant had launched attack on Muzammal Khan petitioner. Thereafter the investigation was entrusted to D.S.P. peoples Colony Faisalabad who disagreed with the finding of the D.S.P. Kotwali referred to above and submitted a report to the S.S.P. that all the three accused should be challaned. The case was finally investigated by Abdul Waseh, S.P. Investigation (Urban), Faisalabad. In the Zimni, dated 12-1986 he stated that there was a Badmash with the complainant party and they attacked the accused persons. Perusal of the record reveals that on visiting the spot he found that there was no pathway connecting Mohallah Azamabad with Street No.10 of Mohallah Munirabad where the occurrence took place nor aforesaid Street No.10 was connected with Street 18 of Mohallah Razaabad. According to the F.I.R. the occurrence took place in Street No.10 when the deceased and complainant reached there on return from Mohallah Azamabad. The Superintendent of Police has affirmed the finding of the D.S.P., Kotwali. Thus, there is a concurrent finding of two senior Police Officers that the complainant party were the aggressors. The finding of a police officer though not binding on Court, is a relevant circumstance in a bail matter. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the grant of bail to the petitioners is made out. They are, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad.
S.A./736/L Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer