1982 P Cr (PLP)

This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to Jan Muhammad and Shah Muhammad respondents by the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari, vide order dated 27th July, 1981, in a case under sec tion 307/308/325, P, P. C. registered at Police Station, Mailsi vide F. I. R. No. 148 dated 30th May, 1981.

2. The prosecution case is that the respondents along with one Amir Bakhsh in furtherance of their common intention launched a murderous assault upon Rahim Bakhsh who was sleeping outside his shop in the morning of 30th May, 1981 in the area of Mauza Aliwah. So far as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned it is alleged that while armed with lathis, they inflicted injuries on the head of the victim. The medical evidence shows that there were three injuries which are as follows : - (i) A lacerated wound 7 c. m. x 1 c. m. x bone deep with swelling around on the rt. side of front of head and forehead. (ii) A lacerated wound 3 c.m. x c. m. x scalp deep on the rt. side of head 4 c. m. above and behind the ear. (iii) The right eye is swollen and bluish. Out of these, injury No. 1 has been declared grievous and dangerous to life and the remaining injuries are simple.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the petition for bail after arrest on 15th July, 1981 but after twelve days allowed bail to the respondents in spite of the fact that no fresh ground had arisen in the course of events. He submits that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge that the injured has been discharged from the hospital is not a ground for the grant of bail to the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the State has supported the petition and states that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the respondents have committed an offence punishable under sec tion 307, P. P. C.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner should have moved the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail in the first instance and that it was not a case of murderous assault for the reasons that the respondents did not intend to cause the death of the victim. He further sumits that the learned Sessions Judge was justi fied in allowing bail to the respondents on the ground that the victim had been discharged from the hospital.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the two orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I find that the order dated 15th July, 1981 shows that the learned Sessions Judge, after having considered the factual and legal aspect of the matter had declined to grant bail to the respondents but twelve days thereafter he granted the concession of bail to the respondents on the grounds which are not recognised by law and that the allegations against the respondents are that they having armed themselves with lathis attacked Rahim Bakhsh while he was asleep outside his shop and gave injuries on his head, out of which one injury was declared dangerous to life. I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has acted in a hasty manner and once having rejected the bail on 15th July, 1981 there was no legal justification for allowing the same on a subsequent occasion after twelve days. The charge against the accused is punishable with imprisonment for life.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the bail allowed to the respon dents Nos. 1 and 2 by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby cancelled. It would, however, be open to the respondents to repeat the appli cation for bail before the trial Court or the learned Sessions Judge in case the Police delays the submission of the challan or production of evidence or on any other fresh ground which may arise. The investigating officer is directed to submit the challan within seven days. Bail cancelled.