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. 2369/B of 1986, decided on 27th October, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148 &302/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑ One of accused attributed five injuries on testicles of deceased while other two attributed causing of injuries to deceased with Sotas‑‑Medical evidence contradicting allegations‑‑Carbine recovered from accused, not connected with crime‑‑Allegations against accused, held, required further inquiry‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.
Ch. Liaqat Ali Sandhu for Petitioners.
Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State.
Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for the Complainant.
The petitioners Sattar, Shakoor and Ghani, who were involved in a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No. 41, dated 28‑2‑1986, registered at Police Station, Pindi Bhattian, Gujranwala, have sought to be released on bail.
2. The allegations against the petitioners and their co‑accused Abdul Jabbar are that on 22‑2‑1986, at 3‑00 p.m. they opened attack on Muhammad Khan son of Nazar Muhammad at the exhortation of Nek Muhammad, a co‑accused already on bail. Abdul Jabbar was armed with gun, Sattar was armed with carbine, Shakoor and Ghani were armed with Sotas. Abdul Jabbar fired the first shot with gun hitting Muhammad Khan deceased on his abdomen. Sattar fired a shot with carbine hitting the deceased on testicles. Another shot was fired with gun by Jabbar hitting the deceased on his chest. On receiving these gunshots the deceased fell down and in fallen condition he was dealt blows with Sotas by Shakoor and Ghani. Consequently he died.
3. The contents of the post‑mortem report of Muhammad Khan, however, run counter to the allegations contained in the F.I.R., inasmuch as only one fire‑arm wound of inlet was found on the person of the deceased. No other injury was noticed on his dead body as the time of his post‑mortem examination. It has been opined by the doctor who performed the autopsy that death occurred due to injury to the right part, front chest, which caused shock and extensive haemorrhage. This injury according to the doctor was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the diagram indicating the pictorial presentation of the injury also only one injury has been shown on the person of the deceased caused on the right part, front chest.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that although injuries to the deceased have been attributed to the petitioners, but no such injury has been found on the dead body of the deceased at the time of autopsy.
5. The learned counsel for the parties has urged that a carbine and .12 bore cartridges have been recovered from Sattar petitioner. This recovery to say the least about it is of no consequence, because it is not connected with the offence.
6. In the above circumstances, the allegations against the petitioners require further inquiry and, therefore, they are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Hafizabad.
S.A./s‑28/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