Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2275 2012 SLD 2275 2012 PCRLJ 1388
Sindh High Court
Criminal Bail Applications Nos. S-409 and S-1047 of 2011,decided on 30th January, 2012
SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J
A.R. Faruq Pirzada for Applicants (in Criminal Bail Application No. 409 of 2011). Zuber Ahmed Rajput for the Applicants (in Criminal Bail Applications Nos.1047 of 2011). Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, D.P.G. for the State

MUHAMMADUDDIN and anothersVsTHE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting, common object---Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Accused was an Advocate of High Court, and it would certainly be a case of humiliation, if a person belonging to an honourable profession, was sent behind bars, particularly when on merits, his case for bail was made out---F.I.R., showed two allegations against accused, firstly, he was member of that nine member group; and secondly after deceased had been murdered, other co-accused with intention to kill, fired at other members of the complainant party, but they by falling down evaded the fire---Was yet to be seen that "others" who fired at other members of the complainant party had the intention to kill or merely to cause scare---No specific role of any of the "others" was stated in the F.I.R. or even in the statement of witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Accused being entitled to bail, his interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting and common object---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against co-accused in F.I.R. was that he made Repeater and Rifle fire on deceased, who raised cries and fell down---Co-accused was said to be of 71 years of age---Mere oldage was not a ground sufficient for grant of bail---Whether the Mashirs were reliable and truthful or not, what was the distance from which fire was made; and what did recovery of cushion wad mean, were the issues which required deeper appreciation of evidence and such an exercise could not be undertaken at the stage of bail---Contention that it was tendency that entire family was involved, was also not relevant for the case against said co-accused because allegation against him was that he along with one co-accused fired at the deceased; and in the F.I.R. itself, it was stated that deceased had received injuries on the front of his head, on forehead, on eyes, on right hand and leg---Prima facie there seemed to be…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492