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. 114/B of 1987, decided on 1st February, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 325/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Both parties receiving injuries‑‑Delay in lodging F.I.R., not explained‑ Injuries on persons of accused, suppressed by prosecution‑‑Question as to which of the parties was liable for aggression was yet to be determined‑‑Case against accused not falling within prohibitory clause‑ Bail granted in circumstances.
Muhammad Afzal Khan Niazi for Petitioners.
Rana Ahmad Saeed for the State.
The petitioners Mumtaz and Mehr Khan, who are involved in a case under section 325/34, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No. 56, dated 5‑10‑1986, registered at Police Station, Chikrala, District Mianwali, have sought to be released on bail.
2. It has been alleged that the petitioners and two other co‑accused while armed with hatchets and Sotis caused injuries to the complainant and three others on 19‑9‑1986 at Rotiwela while the complainant was ploughing his field. It has further been alleged that the dispute was pending between the parties over the land. The occurrence was reported to the police by the complainant on 26‑9‑1986. After the receipt of the medicolegal report in regard to the injuries which were kept under observation, formal case was registered on 5‑10‑1986. The delay between 19‑9‑1986 and 26‑9‑1986, has, of course, not been explained.
The accused party also reported the occurrence to the police on 24‑9‑1986. As a matter of fact during the fight 15 injuries were received by the members of the complainant party including the complainant, while 7 injuries were received by members of the accused party. In case of complainant party, two injuries, one on the nasal bone of a P.W. and the other on the back of chest of another P.W. were found to be grievous while in case of injuries received by the members of the accused party, all were declared as simple. In both the cases, injuries were opined to have been caused by blunt weapon. A complaint filed by the accused party under section 307, P.P.C. in regard to the occurrence giving rise to the present case is also pending.
3. The question as to which of the two parties is liable for aggression has yet to be determined. The case against the petitioners otherwise also does not fall within the prohibitory clause. As already observed, delay in reporting the matter to the police has also not been explained in the F.I.R. Injuries on the persons of the members of the accused party have been suppressed in the F.I.R. In the above circumstances the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Mianwali.
S. A./M‑21/L Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer