Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1290/B of 1982, decided on 31st October 1982.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/34/325‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Injured remaining confined to bed for over two months and number of injuries suffered by him showing that he was mercilessly beaten by accused‑‑Prima facie accused guilty under S. 307, P.P.C.‑‑Grant of bail by Magistrate in circumstances improper exercise of discretion while order of cancellation of bail passed and Sessions Judge balanced and proper‑‑Accused, held, not entitled to grant of bail.

S. A. Sehgal for Petitioners.

Nasim Rashid for the State.

Zawar Shah for the Complainant.

All the 5 petitioners have been reported against at Police Station Sahuka by one Khurshid Alam for having way laid Muhammad Siddique P.W. and caused him simple as well as grievous hurt in the vicinity of Chak No. 303/E. B. On the morning of 28‑6‑1982 and then removed him to their tubewell and confined him there. According to the medico‑legal report he suffered 25 injuries including 7 grievous injuries involving fracture of left leg, right leg, left arm, right arm. The injuries are spread all over his body. Some of the injuries though described as one show multiple contusion at one place. In short he was beaten mercilessly and was removed to the hospital in an unconscious condition. The medical witness found all the injuries as "collectively dangerous to life".

2. The Magistrate 1st Class Burewala, enjoying power under section 30, Cr.P.C. granted bail to the petitioners on 21‑7‑1982 on the ground that since the injured remained under full control of the petitioners for sufficient time yet he was not killed. He, therefore found that the case was prima facie a border line case between section 307, P.P.C. and 325 P.P.C. Being aggrieved the complainant moved the Court of Sessions at Vehari and sought the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 7‑9‑1982 accepted the petition and cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail, through the instant petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the State and also perused the record. It is amply established on, record that the injured P.W. namely, Muhammad Siddique remained confined to bed for over 2 months. The number and nature of injuries suffered by him indicate that he was mercilessly beaten. The learned Magistrate was not correct in observing that it was a border line case between section 307, P.P.C. and 325, P.P.C. He does not appear to have taken light from innumerable cases decided by this Court where the victim died of merciless beating the accused were held guilty of committing the offence of murder. In the present case also, had the injured died, the petitioners would have been prima facie proceeded against on the charge of murder.

4. From the above discussion it follows, that prima facie the petitioners are guilty under section 307, P.P.C. Even if it is taken, for argument sake, that the offence committed by the petitioners was covered by section 325, P.P.C. punishable with 7 years' R.I. The grant of bail to the petitioners in the circumstances were certainly an improper exercise of discretion. In my view he exercised the same arbitrarily and without applying his mind to the facts of the case. The order of cancellation of bail passed by learned Sessions Judge appears to be balanced and proper one. For the foregoing reasons, I am clearly of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of bail. This petition being without merit fails and is consequently dismissed. It would, however, be open to the petitioners to repeat such application on fresh grounds which become available to them in future in the normal course of events.

M. Y. H. /3194/L Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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