Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NASIM MASIH VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 M L D 520
1988 M L D 520
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
NASIM MASIH and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1679/B of 1988, decided on 26th June, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Investigation completed and petitioners no more required by the Police‑‑Co‑accused already released on bail by the Coin t‑‑F.I.R. lodged with unexplained delay of 2 days‑‑ Injuries on the person of complainant declared simple‑‑Petitioners allowed bail, in circumstances.
Ch. Naeem Shakir for Petitioners.
Imran Aziz for the State.
ORDER A case under section 307/34, P.P.C. stands registered against the petitioners and 2 others with Police Station Saddar, District Sargodha, vide F.I.R. dated 17th of March, 1988. According to the allegations as contained m the F.I.R. the first informant Edwin Masih was coming to his house on 15th of March, 1988 at about 8/9 a.m. When he reached near the bus‑stop, the petitioners who were armed with a dagger and a knife, and their co‑accused armed with Sotas, came there. Petitioner No. 1 Naeem is alleged to have given a first dagger blow which landed on the head of the first informant which was followed by petitioner No. 2 Basharat Masih, that also landed on the head of the first informant, whereupon he fell down. The co‑accused of the petitioners are alleged to have Even him injuries while he had fallen down. The motive as given in the F.I.R. is that the first informant had tried to out‑rage the modesty of one Rukhsana Bibi who is first cousin of both the petitioners.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that, the F.I.R. in the instant case has been registered with unexplained delay of two days. Contends that all the injuries on the person of the injured have been declared simple. It is urged that the present case is a counter‑blast of a case which was registered against the first informant under Hudood Laws regarding his misbehaviour with Mst. Rukhsana. The contentions of the learned counsel‑for the petitioners have been controverted by the learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the file. The occurrence took place on 15th of March, 1988, whereas the F.I.R. was got registered on 17th of March, 1988. Though the first infor0ant has tried to explain the delay, yet same is not very convincing and a positive finding can only be given by the trial Court after recording of evidence. The injuries on the person of the first informant have been declared simple. A case against the first informant was registered about two months earlier wherein it was alleged that he had tried to outrage the modesty of one Mst. Rukhsana Bibi w46 is the first cousin of the petitioners. The co‑accused of the petitioners have al ready been released on bail. The investigation is complete and the petitioners are not required for the same any more. In these circumstances, the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each with 2 sureties each in the like 9mount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Sargodha. S.G.D./N‑161/L
Bail granted.