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. 3567/8 of 1986, decided on 11th January, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 148/302/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Principle of consistency‑‑Accused alongwith co‑accused (on bail) allegedly resorting to reckless firing with carbines to terrorize people‑‑Bail refused to accused for the reason that crime empty recovered from spot wedded with carbine recovered from accused‑‑Carbine and empty remaining with police for some days and sent together to Forensic Science Laboratory‑ Ballistic expert's report, held, was of no consequence in circumstances and case of accused would be at par with co‑accused already admitted to bail‑‑Accused ordered to be released on bail on principle of consistency.
Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid for Petitioner.
Nasim Iqbal for the State.
Ch. Rashid Ahmad for the Complainant.
The petitioner Khalid Mahmood who was involved in a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No. 334/256, dated 11‑9‑1986, registered at Police Station North Cantt. Lahore, has sought to be released on bail.
2. It has been alleged that the petitioner and his co‑accused wanted Muhammad Azam deceased to close the office of Muslim League which was located in one of the rooms on the ground floor in his house. On his refusal to do so, he was attacked on 11‑9‑1986 in the evening. The petitioner was allegedly armed with carbine. He and his co‑accused Arif alias Dana, who too was armed with carbine fired recklessly to deter the neighbourers to come to the scene of occurrence, while the other co‑accused caused injuries to the deceased with sharp‑edged weapons and done him to death.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 15‑9‑1986. A carbine was allegedly recovered at his instance on 28‑9‑1986. An empty was recovered from the spot on 11‑9‑1986. As per Ballistics Expert's report, the empty recovered from the ‑spot wedded with the carbine recovered at the instance of the petitioner. It has, however, been noticed that the empty as also the carbine were sent to the Ballistics Expert on one and the same day i.e. on 2‑10‑1986. Thus, the empty and carbine remained in the police custody for a few days. In these circumstances the Ballistics Expert's report favouring the prosecution has been rendered without consequence.
4. The co‑accused Arif alias Dana against whom also allegations are to the effect that like the petitioner he too was armed with carbine at the time of occurrence and he and the petitioner fired recklessly with their respective carbines at the time of occurrence to terrorize the people so that no one should come to the place of occurrence, has since been admitted to bail by the learned trial Court on 4‑1‑1987. The petitioner's plea for bail has been declined on the ground that the empty recovered from the spot has wedded with the carbine recovered at his instance according to the report of the Fire‑arms Expert.
5. As observed earlier, the Ballistics Expert's report in the circumstances of this case is of no consequence, as the empty as well as the carbine were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory a few days after the recovery of carbine on one and the same day. In this view of the matter, the petitioner's case is at par with that of Arif co‑accused and he is also entitled to be released on bail on the principle of consistency. The petitioner is thus admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A . C . , Lahore Cantt.
S.A./K‑1/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