Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 991
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Khizar Hayat, J
MANZOOR HUSSAIN ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4367/B of 1993, decided on 6th December, 1993.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/324/148/149---Bail, grant of---Chest injury attributed to the accused had been described as an abrasion in the post-mortem report---Doctor's opinion that said injury was the result of fire-arm, therefore, prima facie appeared to be open to question and it could be either the result of fall or striking against some blunt object---For resolving said controversy between the F.I.R. and medical evidence further inquiry was needed---Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.
Ghulam Sabir for Petitioner.
Bashir Ahmad Beg for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th December, 1993.
ORDER
This is an application for grant of bail on behalf of Manzoor Hussain who has been arrested in case F.I.R. No.230/93 registered at Police Station Naulakha, Lahore for an offence under section 324/302/148 and 149, P.P.C. lodged by Muhammad Ishaq for the murder of his son, Muhammad Mushtaq.
2. According to the F.I.R. the complainant alongwith his deceased son Muhammad Mushtaq at the relevant time came out of their house for going to Bazar to purchase some household articles. As soon as they came in the street eight persons belonging to two different factions including the petitioner confronted each other and started firing. Manzoor petitioner herein is accused of having fired two shots at the deceased, one of which hit his chest and other on the toe of right foot. The fatal head injuries to the deceased was attributed to Nisar alias Billa. The petitioner's bail plea was declined by the lower Court, hence this application.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State, and perused the record. It has been vehemently contended that according to the post-mortem report no fire-arm injury had been suffered by the deceased in his chest and that the other shot allegedly fired by him had hit the tip of 4th toe of right foot which too seems to be the result of some stray pellet during the incident and cannot be specifically attributed to the petitioner, hence he is entitled to the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State opposes the grant of bail and says that according to the doctor all the injuries (including injury No.5 which is described as linear vertical abrasion S.X 0.5 c.m.) are the result of fire-arm, therefore, the participation of the petitioner is very much established and as such he is not entitled to the grant of bail.
4. Admittedly three out of the eight accused namely Zahid Pervez, Abid and Iqbal Gujjar have been declared as innocent while one Jamshed has been allowed bail by the Sessions Judge and two namely Nisar Billa who fired the fatal shot the deceased and Aamer Khan are at large. I have carefully gone through the post-mortem report and find that the chest injury attributed to the petitioner has been described as abrasion. Therefore, the opinion of the doctor that this was the result of fire-arm prima facie appears to be open to question. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not far wrong in saying that it is either the result of fall or striking against some blunt object. In view of this alleged conflict between the F.I.R. and the medical evidence, I earnestly feel that, for resolving this controversy further inquiry is needed. I would, therefore, allow bail to the petitioner. He shall be released subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N.H.Q./M-1379/L Bail allowed.