SARDAR KHAN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. A case under sections 307/452, 1471 148 and .149, P. C. read with section 14115 of the Islaami Taxeerati Act and 17(31 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance was registered by the Police Mirpur on the report of Abdur Rahman, its maker.

2. Thirteen persons namely Sardar Khan and Muhammad Shafi sons of Nizam Din, Benaras Ali, Liaqat Ali and Basharat Ali sons of Sardar Khan, Khurshid and Abdul Majid alias Hamid sons of Muhammad Shafi, Inayat Ullah alias Atta Ullah son of Jalal Din, Muhammad Ishaque son of Ghulam Hussain, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Arif alias Kala sons of Munshi Khan, Abdur Rashid alias Latif son of Sain Khan and Muhammad Shafi son of Ghulam Din were involved in the case.

3. The reporter of the occurrence and his brothers namely Ibrahim and Israiel were injured. The injuries on their persons were grievous as well as simple ones. A sharp weapon was also used against the person of Ibrahim, one of the persons inured. The specific injuries on the persons of the injured were only attributed to Sardar Khan and Muhammad Shafi sons of Nizam Din applicants while the other accused were also alleged to have caused injuries on their persons but no specific injury could at first be attributed to them.

4. The offence of Haraaba under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance was not found true and so this section was dropped by the police itself.

5. After perusing the police file, it appears that the investigation of the case was spoiled by the police officers conducting the investigation while recording the statements of, the witnesses under section 161, Cr. P. C. The additional statements of the eye‑witnesses were also recorded which contradictorily go partly against their first statements recorded. The three brothers were mercilessly beaten and peppered as a result of which severe beating; the aforesaid brothers also suffered from grievous hurts. Ibrahim and Israiel had to stay in the Hospital undergoing treatment for more than 21 days for which period they were unable to perform or do the normal work of daily routine.

6. After having examined the circumstances of the case in view of the evidence on record, I feel that interim bail granted to Sardar Khan and Muhammad. Shafi sons of Nizam Din and Basharat and Abdul Majid alias Hamid should not be confirmed and as such it is, hereby cancelled. But in case of other accused on pre‑arrest bail, it is accordingly confirmed.

7. Abdur Rashid alias Latif accused‑applicant who was not known to Ibrahim and Israiel till the time when they made their statements under section 161, Cr. P. C. before the police though in the additional statement of Ibrahim, he was named but it is not known bow Ibrahim was able to name him. No identification parade with respect to him was held by the police so as, to conclude that he was recognized by the person injured. It is without touching the merits of the case this way or that way, that in the circumstances above, I allow bail to Abdur Rashid applicant in the sum of Rs, 10,000 with one surety and the personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional District Magistrate, Mirpur.

8. Sardar Khan, Muhammad Shafi; Basharat and Abdul Majid alias Hamid shall be remitted to the Judicial Lock‑up where they are to remain for a period of 15 days with effect from today in the first instance and in case the challan is not presented within this period, the police may proceed under section 344, Cr. P. C. and the accused in custody may move application for their bail before the trial Court. This order will not be a hindrance in their way to do so. If the police delays the submission of the challan unnecessarily the accused will be entitled to move application for their bail. Thus both the applications stand disposed of accordingly.

9. Order accordingly.