Respondents were allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide orders dated 8th September, 1988 in a case registered against them under sections 307/323/427/148 and 149 P.P.C.
2. Briefly-the allegation against the respondents Liaqat A.I and Fayyazul Hasan is, that they had caused one injury each on the person of Abdul Khaliq P.W. With daggers. Injury caused by Liaqat A.I respondent was declared to be grievous as well as dangerous to life, while injury caused by respondent Fayyazul Hassan was found simple.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation, it was agreed upon by both the sides, that if one Chaudhari Azam makes a statement in respect of the innocence of Liaqat A.I respondent, then the complainant would not pursue the case. It is stated that some one impersonated Chaudhari Azam to state about the innocence of respondent Liaqat A.I therefore, Liaqat All was admitted to bail. It is stated that on the disclosure on such fraud, real Chaudhari Azam appeared and stated that Liaqat A.I respondent was armed with dagger. Hence, it is stilted that earlier finding based upon the statement of imposter cannot he looked into and relied upon for the grant of hail.
4. Respondents Ijaz and Qamarul Zaman both are alleged to have caused one injury each with knife on the left elbow and thigh of Abdul Khaliq P.W.
5. As far as respondents Shaukat and Tajammal are concerned, they were armed with Dandas, and had caused simple injury to Abdul Jabbar PW.
6. After careful consideration of all the facts of this case, as far as grant of bail to Liaqat A.I, Fayyazul Hasan, Ijaz and Qamarul Zaman respondents, is concerned, the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not based upon the sound judicial principles, because all these four respondents were armed with daggers and knives, and the manner of attack was envisaged in the F.I.R. Clearly shows that prima facie, the case falls within the purview of section 307 P.P.C. However, it would not appropriate at this stage to further comment upon the nature of the offence, because the trial has not yet commenced. In this view of the matter, the bail granted to all the aforementioned respondents is hereby cancelled.
7. As far as respondents Shaukat A.I and Tajammul are concerned, it is evident from the record, that they were not armed with deadly weapons, therefore, no case for interference by this Court to their extent is made out, and the bail order to their extent is not open to any exception. With these observations, this petition is allowed.
S.A./A-761/L