Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 762/13 of 1981, decided on 7th of October, 1981.

‑‑S. 8‑‑Motive‑‑Motive, held, was a double edged weapon and could be used by either side in support of its case.

‑‑‑S. 497 ‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/452/436/382/148/149‑ Bail, grant of‑‑Involvement of accused, his father and brother in earlier cases, held, would not be helpful in determining question of bail which could be examined without keeping in view earlier incidents.

‑‑‑S. 497 ‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/452/436/382/148/149‑ Bail, grant of‑‑Complainant who allegedly received two fist blows by accused neither receiving any injury nor appearing for medical examination after incident or producing medical certificate before police‑ Pistol shot also allegedly fired which hit wall of complainant's house but no fired bullet recovered from place of occurrence‑‑Case one of further inquiry to determine guilt of accused‑‑Bail granted.

Sh. Khizar Hayat for Petitioners.

Syed Zawar Hussain Shah for the Complainant.

Muhammad Naeem Kureja for the State.

Abdus Sattar and Muhammad Salim petitioners were arrested by the police in case F.I.R. No. 599, dated 15‑8‑1981 registered under section 307/452/436/382/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Haram Gate, Multan. They applied for bail in the first instance to the Ilaqa Magistrate and then to the Sessions Judge, Multan but their prayer for bail was rejected. They have now moved this Court for being released on bail.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as disclosed in the F.I.R. which was lodged about an hour after the occurrence by Sh. Zahoor Ahmad complainant, are that at about 1‑00 a.m. some body knocked at his door while he was asleep in his house. On coming out of his house he saw the petitioners alongwith Abdur Rehman and two other persons. Abdus Sattar petitioner caught hold of him by his Collar and gave him a fist blow on the right side of his face. Salim petitioner followed him and gave him a list blow and also forcibly removed his wrist watch. At the exhortation of Abdus Sattar petitioner his brother Abdur Rehman fired at him but luckily he escaped unhurt. The two other companions of the petitioners in the meanwhile sprinkled some oil on the complainant's car and on the door of his house and set them on fire. The occurrence was witnessed by the complainant's brother Sh. Zafar, Muhammad Saeed and some other persons of the locality.

3. Petitioners have sought bail on the grounds that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant against whom Abdul Jabbar, father of Abdus Sattar petitioner has filed an election petition that the complainant had not sustained any injury at the time of occurrence; and that no damage was caused to the car or the house of the complainant and that the story narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. is highly improbable on the face of it.

4. Petitioners' prayer for bail has been opposed by the State as well as the complainant's counsel. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail because they bear a grudge against the complaint after he was elected as a Councillor in the Local Bodies Election held in 1979. Abdul Jabbar, father of Abdus Sattar petitioner has filed an election petition against the complainant. They have been threatening the complainant and his supporters. On 27‑9‑1979 Abdul Jabbar, his son 'of Abdul Rehman and three others had attacked Khalid Mahmood who had acted as the Election agent of the complainant and a case under section 307/148/149, P. P. C. was registered against them. Thereafter another case under section 414/379/148/149, P‑P.C, was registered against Abdul Jabbar and his son Abdul Rehman and several others. Again on 13‑8‑1981 a case under section 500/506 P.P.C. was registered by the police on the complaint made by the complainant against Abdul Jabbar, his son Abdur Rehman and Abdus Sattar, Salim petitioner and one Maqbool. It is further contended‑by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioners alongwith their co‑accused had gone to the house of the complainant at midnight to kill him and in fact Abdul Rehman accused had fired a shot with his pistol at the complainant which however, did not hit him.

5. I have heard the parties' counsel. at length. There is no doubt that Abdul Jabbar, father of Abdus Sattar petitioner has filed an election petition against the complainant and the same is pending before the Election Tribunal. Parties relations are obviously strained, because of the aforementioned election petition which was filed in 1979. Abdus Sattar petitioners contention is that the complainant has been trying to involve them in false cases so that his father Abdul Jabbar is compelled to withdraw the election petition filed by him. Complainants grievance, on the other hand, is that Abdul Jabbar after his defeat in the election has started a campaign against him. He and his sons had made a murderous assault on his election agent and had even abused him a few days prior to the occurrence. It is difficult to say at this stage whether Abdul Sattar's father Abdul Jabbar and brother Abdul Rehman were falsely implicated in cases referred to above by the learned counsel for the State and whether they had in fact committed the offences for which cases were registered against them. In criminal cases motive is a double edged weapon and can be used by either sides in support of its case. Thus the involvement of Abdul Jabbar and his sons in the earlier cases would not be helpful for determining the question of bail to the petitioners in the present case. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the facts of the present case without keeping in view the earlier incidents in which Abdus Sattar petitioner and his father and brother were involved. Zahoor Ahmad complainant did not sustain any injury at the time of the occurrence because he did not appear for medical examination after the incident, nor he produced any medical certificate before the police though he was allegedly given two fist blows by Abdus Sattar and Salim petitioners on his face.

It has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the State that the police has recovered pistol from Abdur Rehman co‑accused and that two live bullets were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence. It has also been stated that the shot fired by Abdur Rehman with his pistol had hit the wall of the complainant's house, but it is strange that the fired bullet has not been recovered from the place of occurrence.

According to the complainant's own version his car and the door of his house were set on fire by the two unidentified companions of the petitioners, who after being arrested, have already been admitted to bail by the Ilaqa Magistrate.

From the above facts it is evident that further inquiry is necessary for determining the guilt of the petitioners. Their case is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. They are accordingly admitted to bail on their furnishing security in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Multan.

M. Y. H. /3191/L Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.