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. 3478‑B of 1986, decided on 23rd December, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No injury to deceased attributed to petitioner‑‑Allegedly petitioner present at spot armed with a gun and fired in the air when main occurrence was already over in which deceased received gun shot at hands of principal accused‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.
Malik Haji Nazar Farid Khokhar for Petitioner.
Miss Shereen Saigal for the State.
Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1986.
Rehmat Ali petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and two others under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution version is that on 8th September, 1986 co‑accused Muhammad Ahmad and Punnun abused Yasin deceased over a dispute of irrigation water. On 11th September, 1986 Hakim All, father of Yasin deceased, held Punnun accused by his collar and asked him why he and Muhammad Ahmad had abused his son Yasin. The respectables intervened and separated the parties. Co‑accused Punnun left the place advancing a threat that he would avenge the insult. At about 5 p. m. Hakim Ali complainant and Yasin deceased were going towards their house when Muhammad Ahmad and Rehmat Ali petitioner armed with guns and Punnun with a hatchet confronted them near the house of Jan Muhammad. Co‑accused Punnun raised a Lalkara that Yasin should not be spared, upon‑which Muhammad Ahmad fired at him hitting his abdomen, as a result of which he died at the spot. On hearing the alarm and fire‑report, Barkhurdar, Ramzan and Muhammad Tufail reached the spot when Rehmat Ali petitioner fired his gun and threw a challenge that whosoever came near would be done away with.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no injury to the deceased has been attributed to the petitioner and the only allegation against him is that he fired in the air and raised a Lalkara when the main occurrence was already over. He further submits that no weapon was recovered from petitioner, therefore, his case needs further inquiry. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was present at the spot armed with a gun he shared the common intention with the principal accused, namely, Muhammad Ahmad, for committing the murder of the deceased.
4. I have gone through the relevant material and considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. The only allegation against him is that he was present at the spot armed with a gun and had fired in the air when Yasin deceased was already lying on the ground after receiving a gun‑shot at the hands of principal accused, namely, Muhammad Ahmad. In the order, dated 5th December, 1986 the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the petitioner is the licensee of the gun recovered from Muhammad Ahmad accused. This contention is not borne out from the record and learned State counsel states that the gun recovered from Muhammad Ahmad was unlicensed one. In the circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of l Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Okara.
S.G.D./R‑7/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