Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WAHID BAKHSH and others VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Sh. Ijaz Nisar Title: WAHID BAKHSH and others vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No,329/B of 1984 Date of Judgment:1984-04-10 Reported As: 1984 MLD 1549 Result: Bail refused
Judgment ORDER ' The petitioners are charged with the murder of Allah Bachaya deceased. ' The motive for the offence was that Khuda Bakhsh petitioner suspected the deceased of carrying on with his wife. 2. The petitioners are being connected with the offence by the following circumstances; (a) Last seen. (b) Ocular testimony furnished by Mahinwal P.W. (c) Recovery of the dead body at their instance in the presence of a Magistrate. (d) Extra-judicial confession before Jam Dur Muhammad. (e) Recovery of wrist watch of the deceased from Wahid Bakhsh petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is a delay of 9 days in making the report, that the medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular testimony, that the alleged recovery of the dead body was at the joint potation of the petitioners and lastly that the alleged extra-judicial confession was also jointly made by the petitioneRs, Learned counsel further contends that according to Mahinwal P.W. the deceased was strangulated to death but the presence of a grievous sharp-edged weapon injury on his person belles him. 4. The fact that Mahinwal P.W. kept silent for 9 days after seeking the occurrence coupled with the circumstances of the joint pagination of the dead body, joint extra-judicial confession, conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence would call for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioneRs, Accordingly, I admit them to bail in the sum of Rs,20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Rajanpur. Bail granted.
---
## Page 2
1984 M L I) 1550 [Lahore] Before C. A. Rahman, J HABIB--Petitioner versus 'f II E STATE--Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No,373/B of 1981, decided on 20th May, 1981. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ---S.497(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.364-A--Bail, grant of--Facts that police approached trial Court for cancellation of case on ground that certain persons made statements on oath regarding petitioner's innocence and delay also caused in making report to Police, held, could not be considered a good ground for grant of bail--Bail declined, in circumstances. [p. 15511 A Iqbal Ahmad Malik for Petitioner. Sh. Zia-ud-Din Ahmad Qamar for the Complainant. Sultan Alam for the State. Date of hearing: 6th May, 1981. JUDGMENT ' The petitioner has prayed for bail in the case registered against him under section 364-A/342, P.P.C. at Police Station Sarai Sidhu on 7-2-1981 on the main ground that after the completion of investigation the Police had made a request to the learned Sessions Judge as the case was exclusively tribal by him for the cancellation of the case under section 169, Cr.P.C. which clearly indicated that the Police had not been able to lay its hands on sufficient evidence justifying petitioners trial for the offence in respect of which case had been registered against him. There was also inordinate delay in the registration of the case which has not been satisfactorily explained by the informant. 2. Petitioner's prayer for bail has been opposed on behalf of the State. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the State that the Police had not made a request for the cancellation of the case against the petitioners because of non-availability of evidence against him but on the other hand the above request was made during the course of investigation as certain persons had made statements on oath as proposed by the informant with regard to the innocence of the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept the request made by the Police as the persons named in the F.I.R., who had seen the petitioner taking away the minor daughter of the informant had fully supported the prosecution case when examined by the Police. According to the learned counsel for the State there is sufficient evidence available against the petitioner justifying his trial under section 364-A, Cr.P.C. The complainant had explained in the F.I.R. that he could not report the matter to the police earlier as the petitioner and his relatives had been entreating him for not taking the matter to the Police. 3. The mere fact that the Police had approached the learned Sessions Judge with a request for cancellation of case against the petitioner because the complainant was satisfied after certain persons had made statements on oath as proposed by him regarding the petitioner's innocence cannot be considered as a ground for allowing bail to the petitioner because it is difficult to appreciate how the Police was justified in taking into consideration the statement of complainant while investi gating a cognizable case that he would be satisfied if a particular person was to make a statement on oath that the accused named by him in the report was innocent. At least there is no legal provision which warrants the adoption of any such procedure by a Police Officer while investigating a case. In the case under consideration, the complainant had made some offer that if certain persons were to state on oath that the petitioner was innocent, he would not pursue the matter further but now it has been disclosed that the complainant does not want t withdraw the accusation made by him against the petitioner. The witnesses named in the F.I.R. have made statements before the Police supporting the prosecution case. Under these circumstances it is difficult to accept the petitioner's contention that his case is covered by subsection (2) section 497,
---
## Page 3
Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer who has appeared in Court has disclosed that the challan against the petitioner has already been forwarded to the prosecution agency for necessary scrutiny. 4. As regards the delay in the registration of case, the complainant has given some explanation in the F.I.R. It would be for the learned trial Court to consider it in the light of other facts and circumstances which would be placed before it. At this stage the delay in the registration of case cannot be considered as a ground for admitting the petitioner to bail. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in the petitioner's application for bail and the same is dismissed.