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. 2008/B of 1986, decided on 6th December, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Opinion of Investigating Officer though not binding on Courts but all the same for purposes of bail is a criteria to be noted‑‑Petitioners found to be innocent as a result of four investigations held by different Police Officers‑‑Such fact was definitely a material circumstance favouring accused at bail granting stage‑‑Pre‑arrest interim bail granted to petitioners confirmed in circumstances.
Ch. Khurshid Alam for Petitioners.
Irshad Ahmad for the State. A.W. Butt for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 6th December, 1986.
The brief facts of the case are that a young boy, namely, Ayaz Mahmood was reported to have died an accidental death on 14‑3‑1986. A report to that effect was lodged by the father of the boy, namely, Noor Muhammad with Police Station Muridke on 15‑3‑1986. The mother Sakina Bibi had also allegedly given a supporting affidavit before the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day.
2. Thereafter, on 1‑7‑1986, the District Magistrate ordered for the exhumation of the body of deceased Ayaz Mahmood at the instance of mother Sakina Bibi. The body was exhumated on 8‑7‑1986 and post mortem examination was conducted which showed four injuries on the person of the deceased. After the post‑mortem examination had been conducted, Sakina Bibi got F.I.R. No. 223 registered with Police Station Muridke. District Sheikhupura at 10‑10 p.m. on 8‑7‑1986 in which she named Qamar‑uz‑Zaman, Ghulam Sarwar, Manzoor and Anwar for the murder of her son. Ghulam Sarwar the real paternal‑uncle of the deceased is stated to have hit him with an iron rod. Anwar and Manzoor, other two real paternal‑uncles allegedly gave injuries to the deceased with their hands and sticks. Ayaz Mahmood is stated to have died at the spot. The mother claimed that an attempt was made by her and her daughter Rukhsana to save the deceased boy, but could not do anything out of threats.
3. The motive for the murder of the said boy was that Noor Muhammad son of Akbar Ali i.e. father of the deceased and husband of the complainant/lady was allegedly having illicit relations with his brother's wife Mst. Perveen wife of Muhammad Anwar. The deceased Ayaz tried to stop his father from carrying on that relationship and this caused annoyance to the accused and hence this murder.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this Court ought not to overlook that the F.I.R. was lodged after the post‑mortem result had become available and the F.I.R. is tailored to come in line with the result thereof. The delay of many months is also being pressed into service.
5. The Investigating Officer states that the investigation was first conducted by the local police which found the petitioners to be innocent. Then it was transferred to the Crimes Branch which also came to the same conclusion. The D.S.P., Ferozewala also carried out the investigation and found that the petitioners were innocent and they were falsely involved. Now recently posted as S.H.O./Incharge, Police Station Muridke hay himself conducted the investigation. He disclosed that during the investigation, statement of Muhammad Siddique an immediate neighbour of the complainant was recorded. He stated that on hearing a noise in the house of the deceased, he had gone up to roof of his house from where he had seen Sakina Bibi, her two sons and two daughters having a brawl and then he came down. Later on he learnt that Ayaz Mahmood had died. The Investigating Officer further submits that in view of the fact that concurrent findings of four investigations are that the petitioners are innocent, he has no intention of arresting the petitioners nor he wants their persons.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State and the complainant and examined the record.
7. It is rather strange that the Anwar whose wife was allegedly having illicit relations with Noor Muhammad, father of the deceased, should be harbouring a grudge against the deceased nephew for trying to defend Anwer's honour. I do not wish to comment in depth on merits. It should suffice to observe that case of petitioners is one of further inquiry. The involvement of the petitioners possibly can be result of mala fide on the part of the complainant as well as the police.
8. It is true that opinion of the Investigating Officers has never been considered to be binding on the Courts but all the same for the purpose of bail, it is a relevant criteria to note that as a result of four investigations held by different officers including the Crimes Branch the petitioners have been opined to be innocent. This is definitely a material circumstance favouring the accused at the bail granting stage.
9. The S.H.O. assures this Court that in so far as complainant lady and her children are concerned, they would be given due protection and lawful action taken if ever threat is held out to them by any of the accused or any other person.
10. In view of the overall circumstances of the case, pre‑arrest interim bail granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed.
S.G.D./G‑17/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