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. 609/B of 1982, decided on 30th May, 1982.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302/34‑‑Accused had ambushed deceased‑‑Armed with knife followed deceased when he ran to save life, encircled him and caused simple injury‑‑Act of accused was sufficient overact and not fit case for grant of bail.
Ghulam Rasul v. The State 1982 S C M R 440; Haji Hussain Ahmad v. The State 1980 S C M R 758; Athar Ali Khan v. The State PLD 1972 Lah. 19, Fazal‑ur‑Rehman v. The State P L D 1981 S C (AJ&K) 10 ref.
Nazar Muhammad v. The State P L D 1978 S C 236 rel.
Muhammad Akmal Salimi for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 30th May, 1982.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Tufail petitioner in a case under section 302/ 34, P. P. C . , registered at P . S . Tulamoa, vide F.I.R. No. 110, dated 4‑8‑1981.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner alongwith two others in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Muhammad Rafiq, on 4‑8‑1981 at 7‑15 p.m. in the area of Chak No. 19/9‑R.
3. As for the petitioner, it has been alleged that he alongwith his co‑accused had ambushed the deceased when he was on his way to his tubewell. The petitioner was allegedly armed with a knife and caused a simple injury on the person of the deceased whereas his co‑accused Talib Hussain caused fatal injuries to the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to bail for the reasons that he did not cause fatal blow to the deceased and allegedly inflicted one simple injury to him. He relies on Ghulam Rasul v. The State 1982 S C M R 440, Haji Hussain Ahmad v. The State 1980 S C M R 758, Athar Ali Khan v. The State P L D 1972 Lah. 19, and lastly Fazal‑ur‑Rehman v. The State P L D 1981 S C (AJ&K) 10.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. He submits that it is a case of prompt F.I.R. and a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the case. Inasmuch as, the instant case is not a case of free fight or that of sudden fight, I propose to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Nazar Muhammad v. The State P L D 1978 S C 236. I find that the circumstances of this case are to great extent identical with that of Nazar Muhammad v. The State referred to above. In the instant case, alleged the petitioner alongwith his co‑accused had ambushed. He was armed with knife. When the deceased ran to save his life, the petitioner followed him and encircled him and thereafter, actually caused a simple injury with a knife. To my mind this is sufficient overt act.
7. Without expressing any further opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of bail. The bail application is dismissed.
S.A./4341/L Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer