Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SARDAR BAKHSH VS Respondent: THE STATE
1992 M L D 1871
1992 M L D 1871
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Amir Malik J
SARDAR BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Crl. Misc. No.4692‑B of 1991, decided on 26th January, 1992.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Extra‑judicial confession made by accused, circumstantial evidence in the form of accused carrying the shoes and his co‑accused carrying a Toka coming out of the Dera of the deceased and the recovery of Toka from co‑accused, required further probe to bring home the guilt to accused and his case needed further inquiry‑‑ Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.
Bashir A. Mujahid for Petitioner.
A.H. Masood for the State.
ORDER
The occurrence took place on the night intervening 19/20‑12‑1990 when Umar Hayat (deceased), the brother of Muhammad Ramzan complainant, sleeping near his cattle at the Dera, was found murdered in the early morning and report made to the police in this regard. None was named in the F.I.R. nor any suspicion against anybody expressed.
2. The petitioner who is stated to be about 70 years and his son Khizar Hayat about 30 years were arrested by the police on 5‑10‑1991. Three types of evidence have been collected, that of extra‑judicial confession made to Muhammad Amin P.W. on 29‑9‑1991, circumstantial evidence in the form o petitioner carrying the shoes and his co‑accused carrying Toka, coming out of the Dera of the deceased which is provided by Arshad and Muhammad Khan, P.Ws. while their statements were recorded on 3‑10‑1991 and the recovery of a, Toka from the petitioner's co‑accused on 5‑10‑1991. Learned counsel has correctly contended that these pieces of evidence at this stage would require further probe to bring whom the fact that a case is made out against the petitioner and it does require further inquiry. Hence allowed bail in the sum o Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Sargodha.
N.H.Q./S‑114/L Bail allowed.