MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. Petitioners against whom a case under section 325/34, P.P.C. was registered vide F.I.R. 221, dated 27-6-1987 at Police Station, Depalpur, District Okara, were admitted to bail on the next day of their arrest by A.C./M.I.C. Depalpur.

2. Ghulam Muhammad injured moved application for cancellation of bail. The Additional Sessions Judge who took cognizance of the matter, cancelled the bail by order dated 13-8-1987.

3. The Magistrate again released the accused on bail vide order dated 8-9 1987. This time the reason given by the Magistrate was that the prosecution failed to comply with his direction to submit challan within a week. Again the Additional Sessions Judge on an application moved by the complainant cancelled the bail by order dated 29-11-1987.

4. Thereafter, the accused/petitioners moved this Court for bail. Their application came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Dogar. Having noted the conduct of the Magistrate, the learned Judge directed the office to fix this petition before me.

5. I issued notice on 23-12-1987 and directed the office that the record from the lower Courts be requisitioned and the A.C. be informed to appear personally.

6. On the next date Mr. Iftikhar Hussain A.C. Depalpur appeared and submitted that he did not deal with the case. He said that it was Majeed Akhtar Langrial, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) who dealt with it. 1, therefore, sent for him.

7. On 30-1-1988, the A.D.C. (Consolidation) appeared. He was directed to submit his reply within a week. That has been done.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence took place on 27-6-1987. Though the petitioners had been admitted to hail yet they have been behind the bars for-sufficient period.

9. With regard to the allegation against them, it was contended that they were accused of being armed with sticks with which they caused seventeen injuries to Ghulam Muhammad which were on non-vital parts. Three of the injuries were grievous.

10. Counsel submitted that the person of the petitioners is no more required by the police nor the prosecution case is to be affected in case they are allowed bail.

11. I have also heard counsel for the State. He opposed the bail.

12. I think the petitioners have spent sufficient time behind the bars. They are accordingly allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 each with one surety each in I the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

13. I have gone through the report submitted by Majid Akhtar Langrial, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation). He be served with a notice to show-cause why action shall not be taken against him under section 3 of the I Contempt of Court Act.

14. To come up on 12-3-1988.

15. SA./M-607/L

16. Bail allowed.