Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3083 = 1981 SLD 3083 = 1981 PCRLJ 274
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 1501/13 and 1637/13 of 1980, decided on 14thJune, 1980.
Presented By: Aftab Farrukh, J
Raja Muhammad Safdar for Petitioners. Malik Hamed Mahmood for the State.

BARKAT ALI AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497 (1)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302, 307

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497 (1), proviso --- Sickness-Bail --- Medical Superintendent examining petitioner aged 63/64 years and finding him suffering from Bronchial Asthama with moderate degree of anaemia-Petitioner's case, held, covered by proviso to subsection (1) of S. 497, Cr. P. C.-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307 etc. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497 (1), proviso-Sickness-Bail-Petitioner aged about 52/53 years having ununited fracture of right forearm requiring operative treatment in hospital-Grant of bail on capital charges merely on such fact, held, not justified.                                                                                                                              JUDGMENT This order disposes of Crl. Misc. No. 1501-B/80 and Cr. Misc. No. 1637-B/80, as both arise out bf the same matter. 2. The petitioners have been sent up under section 3021307/325/170/ 148/149/342/452/34, P. P. C. by Police Station Karianwala for the murder of Muhammad Sbafi and attempted murder of Muhammad Malik. All the seven petitioners in both the petitions are specifically named in the first information report as the assailants and it is specifically alleged that after Muhammad Shafi deceased fell down the petitioners inflicted injuries with sticks and butts of the guns on the person of Muhammad Shafi as well as that of Muhammad Malik, the son of the complainant. The deceased has quite a few blunt weapon injuries on his person and Muhammad Malik has suffered a fracture of the lgg, and he names the petitioners as the participants. At this stage I would not go into the appreciation of the arguments that the petitioners except Liaquat were not named by the two witnesses in their statements recorded on the 19th but named only in the supplementary statements recorded on the 29th i.e. after the death of Muhammad…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register