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. 2836/13 of 1986, decided on 4th November, 1986.
‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109, 148, 302 & 307/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused not participating in actual occurrence‑‑Accused about 13 years according to school leaving certificate and 16‑1/2 years according to birth certificate‑‑Accused alongwith two others allegedly asking co -accused to go to the Dera of complainant party and ensure that no engagement was to take place of the girl whose hand was demanded by accused party‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.
Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Petitioner.
Malik Muhammad Yousuf for the State.
Sh. Abdul Aziz for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 4th November, 1986.
‑‑Muhammad Khan petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 148, 302 and 307/149/109, P.P.C.
In the occurrence which took place on 23‑6‑1986 at 5‑30 p.m., Nazar Hayat deceased was fired at by co‑accused Manzur, as a result of which he died at the spot. Another person, namely, Muhammad Iqbal, suffered fire‑arm injuries at the hands of Zafar Iqbal who was armed with a gun. The petitioner is not alleged to have participated in the actual occurrence. The allegation against him is that he alongwith Murad and Sardar had asked the other accused to go to the Dera of Lal Khan and ensure at all costs that the engagement of Mst. Shehnaz does not take place. It is alleged that the accused party wanted the hand of Mst. Shehnaz for Mumtaz son of Sardara but Nazar Hayat deceased had opposed this proposal. On the day of occurrence, the Baradari had gathered at the Dera of Lal Khan in connection with the engagement ceremony of Mst. Shehnaz with Ghulam Abbas.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was a young lad of thirteen years, the allegation attributed to him does not show any conspiracy and even otherwise a boy of that tender age was not expected to give any advice in respect of the engagement of a girl. It is submitted that there is no material with the prosecution to link him with the commission of the offences under sections 302 and 307, P.P.C. The learned State counsel does not oppose the prayer for bail.
Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was above 16 years of age and the murder was committed in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by him and his co‑accused Murad and Sardar with other accused who participated in the occurrence. He further submits that the principal accused Manzur who is the brother‑in‑law of the petitioner, is a fugitive from law, therefore, no ground for the grant of bail is made out.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. The petitioner is not alleged to have participated in the actual occurrence. According to the school‑leaving certificate placed on the file, his date of birth is the 25th of May 1973, meaning thereby that at the time of occurrence he was about thirteen years and one month old. According to the birth certificate, issued by the Secretary, Union Council, concerned, his date of birth is 18th December, 1969 which would show that at the time of occurrence he was sixteen and a half years of age. According to the F.I.R. the only allegation against him is that he alongwith Murad and Sardar had asked the other accused to go to the Dera of Lal Khan and ensure that the engagement of Mst. Shahnaz does not take place. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the grant of bail is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot.
S.A./M‑102/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