Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497 , 307/325/324/34

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ---S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/325/324/34--Bail--Injury attributed to accused was simple in nature and not declared to be dangerous to life- Accused did not repeat the blow which rendered his case of further inquiry regarding offence under S.307, P.P.C: -Co-accused causing grievous injury had been enlarged on bail--Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Alam and 2 others v. State 1986 M L D 1558; Muhammad Mubeen and another v. State 1987 M L D 1568 and Ch. Muhammad Anwar Samma etc. v. State 1976 S C M R 168 rel. Nazeer Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Akhter for the State. ORDER The brief facts of the present bail petition are that an F.I.R. No.141 of 1989, dated 17-7-1989 was registered at Police Station Musafar Khana, District Bahawalpur, under section 307/324/325/34, P.P.C. against the petitioner and three others. According to the F.I.R., the accused party suspected the complainant to have named them as the persons who had stolen the wheat belonging to one Haji Allah Ditta Lodhra. On the day of occurrence, it is alleged that the complainant was cutting grass when the accused party assaulted him and that the petitioner caused him injury on his head with his hatchet, and that the other co-accused caused injuries to the complainant his son, Muhammad Munir and his brother, Noor Ahmed. Only one injury, stated above, was attributed to the present petitioner. The bail applications of the petitioner were rejected by the trial Court on 9-8-1989 and by the learned Sessions Judge on 10-9-1989. Hence the present bail petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends for bail on the ground that the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature and that it has not been declared to be dangerous to life and that the petitioner had not repeated the blow. It is further contended that the co-accused, Muhammad Akram, who is alleged to have caused the grievous injuries has already been bailed out and that, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be dealt with in the same manner on the principle of propriety and consistency. It was further contended that as the injury caused…