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. 1342/B of 1982, decided on 8th November, 1982.
---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 304 & 304-A--Truck driven by accused, allegedly, colliding with a motorcycle as a result of which two persons, riding on motorcycle, died--Case against accused registered under S. 304, P.P.C.--Facts mentioned in F.I.R. squarely falling within purview of section 304-A, P.P.C. and not under section 304, P.P.C.- Bail allowed in circumstances.
Taj Muhammad v. The State P L D 1966 Lah. 645 and Muhammad Bakhsh and others v. The State P L D 1979 Lah. 941 ref.
Ch. Nisar A . Saeed for Petitioner.
Zafar Mehmood Anjum for the State.
The petitioner has applied for the grant of-bail in a case registered under section 304, P.P.C. at Police Station Kabirwala, wherein two deaths have occurred in a road accident. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, vide order, dated 12-10-1982, hence this petition.
2. According to the F.I.R. the petitioner was driving a truck which collided with a Motorcycle on which Mst. Saddan and Riaz were riding alongwith the complainant. As a result of the collision Mst. Saddan and Riaz died.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as for the State and perused the record. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. squarely fall within the purview of section 304-A, P.P.C. and not under section 304, P.P.C. He has relied on Taj Muhammad v. The State P L D 1966 Lah. 645. This D.B. authority has been consistently followed. The last case on the subject being Muhammad Bakhsh and others v. The State P L D 1979 Lah. 941. In these authorities it has been held that where death occurred a result of road accident, the case would be covered by section 304, P.P.C. and not 304-A, P.P.C. I have gone through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and find that he has failed to take light from the case-law given by superior Courts and has, therefore, fallen in error by holding that the case of the petitioner constitutes an offence under section 304, P.P.C. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has conceded the proposition of law argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may the facts of the instant case disclose an offence under section 304-A, P.P.C. and resultantly this petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Multan.
H. A. K. /4626/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