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. 79‑B of 1987, decided on 28th January, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497/498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑ Bail‑‑Prosecution not having unequivocal evidence against accused from which it could be reasonably stated that he was guilty of offence imputed to him‑‑Accused admitted to bail.
‑‑‑S. 497/498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail‑‑Accused confessing before Councillor to have committed murder with assistance of co‑accused‑‑Bail refused.
Ehtesham Qadir Shah for Petitioner.
Rana Ahmad Saeed for the State.
Jari Ullah Khan for the Complainant.
This is a petition under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. by Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Ghulam Rasool, petitioners, for bail in respect of a case arising out of an F.I.R.lodged by Mohri Khan at Police Station Bhera in respect of the unwitnessed murder of his father‑in‑law, Muhammad Hayat, deceased, on the night between 8/9‑ 7‑ 1986.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the night between 8/9‑7 1986, Muhammad Hayat, deceased, was murdered in his Behak. The occurrence being unwitnessed, an F.I.R. was registered by Mohri Khan, complainant, his son‑in‑law, in respect of the blind murder.
During investigation, on 9‑7‑1986 Muhammad Yar and Muhammad P.Ws. informed the police that when they were in their fields on the night in question, attending to irrigation, which fields were near the Behak of Muhammad Hayat, deceased, they saw Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Ghulam Rasool, petitioners, and Bashir, co‑accused, passing by them on the pathway. When they inquired from Mst. Ghulam Fatima as to what she was doing there, she stated that she was coming from her mother's residence and she appeared to be somewhat flustered.
On 11‑7‑1986, Mst. Ghulam Fatima, petitioner, confessed to the murder having been committed by her with the assistance of Ghulam Rasool, petitioner, and Muhammad Bashir, co‑accused, before Muhammad Akram, Councillor, Manak, Ghulam Muhammad Yar ands Muhammad P.Ws. as stated above and that of motive. The statements off Muhammad Akram, Councillor, Manak, Ghulam Rasool and Mst. Rasoolan P.Ws. do not show that Ghulam Rasool, petitioner made any clear cut extra‑judicial confession before them, which can be treated as of any incriminatory nature. The prosecution, therefore, does not have unequivocal evidence against Ghulam Rasool, petitioner, from which it can reasonably be stated that he is guilty of the offences imputed to him. He is therefore, entitled to be released on bail.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is partly accepted and Ghulam Rasool, petitioner No. 2, is released on bail, subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rupees Thirty Thousand (Rs.30,000) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha. The prayer for bail of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, petitioner No. 1, is rejected and the petition qua her is dismissed.
M.Y.H./G‑80/L Petition partly accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer