MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Iqbal petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case under sections 148 and 302/149 P.P.C.

2. The facts of the prosecution case have been detailed in my order, dated 8‑4‑1986 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 777‑B of 1986 and need not be recapitulated here. It may, however, be mentioned that the allegation against the petitioner was that he was armed with a hatchet and had, alongwith others, caused injuries to the deceased when he had already fallen down on receiving injuries on the shoulder and forehead at the hands of co‑accused Muhammad Mushtaq and Muhammad Ashfaq.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is at par with that of co‑accused Ashraf who has already been admitted to bail by this Court. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

4. While allowing bail to co‑accused Muhammad Ashraf I had inter alia observed that no specific injury had been attributed to him, all the sharp‑weapon injuries on the person of the deceased were simple in nature, according to post‑mortem report, injury No.1 which was a large foul smelling round on the left side and back of the left hip, was, gangrenous and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; this injury corresponded with injury No. 8 in the medico‑legal report which was caused by a blunt weapon. The present petitioner was also armed with a sharp‑edged weapon and all the injuries caused by such weapons were declared simple in nature. His case is almost identical with that of Muhammad Ashraf co‑accused. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rs. twenty five thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Okara.

M. Y. H. Bail granted.