| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3277 = 1981 SLD 3277 = 1981 PCRLJ 1328 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 376-B of 1981, decided on 3rd May, 1981.
Presented By: A. Rahman,
Ejaz Beg Mirza for Petitioners.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 376-B of 1981, decided on 3rd May, 1981.
Presented By: A. Rahman,
Ejaz Beg Mirza for Petitioners.
MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND ANOTHER----Appellants
VERSUS
THE STATE-----Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497-Bail, cancellation of-Petitioners alleged to have threaten ed complainant and prosecution witnesses after their interim release on bail and such allegations supported by copies of reports made to Police-Release of petitioners on bail in view of such conduct, held, does not appear to be proper-Fact of alleged offence committed by petitioners not falling within prohibitory provisions of S. 497, Cr. P. C.-Held further, not material in view of circumstances of case. Date of hearing : 3rd May, 1981. JUDGMENT The petitioners, who were arrested in case F. I. R. No. 50/47 dated 9th February, 1981 registered at Police Station Saddar, Multan under section 325/452/148/149, P. P. C. on the report of Muhammad Shafiq son of Muhammad Ramzan, resident of Chah Ramzanwala Dakhli, Qadirpur Rawan, Tehsil and District Multan have filed the present petition for bail after their prayer for bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12th April, 1981. The petitioners and their two co-accused Rafiq and Mazhar had earlier applied for pre-arrest bail and they were admitted to interim bail but later on their application for pre- arrest bail was rejected on 10th March, 1981. 2. The petitioners have contended that they had been falsely impli cated in the case due to enmity as there is a dispute between them and the complainant party regarding tie possession of a property. The F. I. R. in the case was lodged after a delay of 24 hours for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the complainant. The com plainant's version that Muhammad Akram petitioner had given a dang blow en the left arm of Rafiq as a result of which his arm was fractured, is not supported by the medical evidence. Similarly the injury attributed to Muhammad Aslam…