IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. _____________/CB/2002

Ali Murad S/o Qadir Khan, caste Nokani, R/o Garkand Waziri,
Tehsil Jam Pur, District Rajan Pur.

……PETITIONER

VERSUS
1. The State.

2. Rahim Dad alias Rahim Bakhsh S/o Ali Bakhsh, caste

Nokani, R/o Raqba Noshahra Tehsil Jam Pur, District Rajan
Pur.

……RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION U/S 497 (5) Cr.P.C.

In Case: -
F.I.R. No. 353/2002 Dated: 16.10.2002
U/s: 302 P.P.C.
P.S. Dajal (Rajan Pur).

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly

been given for the purpose of their summons and citation.
2. That the above referred F.I.R. was lodged on the instance of
the applicant, he stated that his sister namely Sahib Khatoon
was married 40/45 years before with the respondent No. 2 and
from this wedlock, two sons and nine daughters were born
and all are still alive. The respondent No. 2 is cultivating the
lands situated in Raqba Naushehra within the area of P.S.
DaJhil, owned by one Lal Bakhsh Fauja, since 7/8 years. On
the day of occurrence, the applicant along-with his cousin
namely Fida Hussain S/o Naseer Khan, caste Nokani went to
the house of respondent No. 2 to see his sister. The applicant
along-with Fida Hussain and Farooq Ahmad the son of his
sister were sitting in the drawing room at about 11:45 A.M.
Raheem Dad called Farooq Ahmad his son. Farooq Ahmad
demanded the price of two mounds of cotton from his
father/respondent No. 2, on which Raheem Dad started
abusing Farooq Ahmad. On the noise Mst. Sahib Khatoon
came out from the house and reprimanded her
husband/respondent No. 2 on the same cause. The respondent
No. 2 became infuriated and hit his wife Sahib Khatoon with
a brick on her left flank ( ) who died within span of
5/10 minutes. Respondent No. 2 fled away from the scene.
Copy of F.I.R. and better copy are attached as Annex “A &
A/1” respectively.

3. That respondent No. 2 was arrested and found guilty.

Respondent No. 2 applied for post-arrest bail which was
allowed vide order dated 01.4.03. Certified copy of bail
petition and order are attached as Annex “B & C”
respectively.

4. That order dated 01.04.03 is liable to be set aside/cancelled

inter-alia on the following: -

GROUNDS

i) That the impugned order is against the law of natural

justice and law of equity.
ii) That the impugned order is against the prevailing law
and norms of justice.

iii) That the impugned order is illegal, unlawful and

unwarranted under the law.

iv) That the impugned order is capricious, fanciful and

without lawful authority.

v) That the ground on which the concession of bail was

granted, even not agitated in bail petition before the
learned lower court.

vi) That the learned lower court while passing the bail
order misconstrued the illustration cited in the said
order. The weapon of offence in this case a brick of full
size (9” x 4” x 2.5”) weighing 2½ Kg. which is in
ordinary course sufficient to cause death of a person.

vii) That the learned lower court could not bifurcate the
“Qatal-e-Amad” and “Qatal-e-Shibah-ul-Amad”,
judiciously.

viii) That for the sake of arguments if an offence U/s 316

P.P.C. is made out, then the punishment for the same is
14 years, which falls within the preview of prohibitory
clause.

ix) That the ground of old age is self-explanatory, because

the age of the accused/respondent No. 2 is less than 60
years, which does not fall in the preview of old age.
Neither any proof in respect of age was annexed with
the application nor age was determined by the learned
lower court.

x) That the ground of illness was even neither

substantiated by the previous record, nor any report
was called from the concerned quarters.
 xi) That there is sufficient proof/evidence to connect the
accused/respondent No. 2 with the offence and no bail
can be allowed under the law.

xii) That the impugned order caused a great miscarriage of

justice to the applicant and even not sustainable in the
eyes of law.

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the

application in hand may graciously be allowed,
the bail granting order dated 1.4.2003 may
please the cancelled and the concession of bail
extended to respondent No. 2 may please be
withdrawn in the interest of justice.

Humble Petitioner,
Dated: ________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
that this is the first petition of on the subject
in this August Court. No such petition has
earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. _____________/CB/2002

Ali Murad Vs The State etc.

INDEX
S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES
1 Urgent Form
2 Petition U/s 497 (5) Cr.P.C.
3 Affidavit.
4 Copy of F.I.R. along-with better copy. A & A/1
5 Certified copy of bail petition & order B&C
6 Dispensation application
7 Affidavit
8 Power of attorney.

PETITIONER,
Dated: __________

Through: -

Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,

Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002

In
Crl. Misc. No. ____________/CB/2002

Ali Murad Vs The State etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEX.
====================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this

Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as
part & parcel of the main petition.

2. That certified copy of Annex “A” is not readily available.

However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been
annexed with the petition, which is the true copy of the original
document.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the
filing of aforesaid copy of the document.

APPLICANT,
Dated: __________

Through: -
Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002

In
Crl. Misc. No. ____________/CB/2002

Ali Murad Vs The State etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Ali Murad S/o Qadir Khan, caste Nokani, R/o Garkand
Waziri, Tehsil Jam Pur, District Rajan Pur.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled application are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2003 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. ____________/CB/2002

Ali Murad Vs The State etc.

APPLICATION U/S 497 (5) Cr.P.C.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Ali Murad S/o Qadir Khan, caste Nokani, R/o Garkand
Waziri, Tehsil Jam Pur, District Rajan Pur.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and

declare

1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly

been given for the purpose of their summons and citation.

2. That the above referred F.I.R. was lodged on the instance of

the applicant, he stated that his sister namely Sahib Khatoon
was married 40/45 years before with the respondent No. 2 and
from this wedlock, two sons and nine daughters were born
and all are still alive. The respondent No. 2 is cultivating the
lands situated in Raqba Naushehra within the area of P.S.
DaJhil, owned by one Lal Bakhsh Fauja, since 7/8 years. On
the day of occurrence, the applicant along-with his cousin
namely Fida Hussain S/o Naseer Khan, caste Nokani went to
the house of respondent No. 2 to see his sister. The applicant
along-with Fida Hussain and Farooq Ahmad the son of his
sister were sitting in the drawing room at about 11:45 A.M.
Raheem Dad called Farooq Ahmad his son. Farooq Ahmad
demanded the price of two mounds of cotton from his
father/respondent No. 2, on which Raheem Dad started
 abusing Farooq Ahmad. On the noise Mst. Sahib Khatoon
came out from the house and reprimanded her
husband/respondent No. 2 on the same cause. The respondent
No. 2 became infuriated and hit his wife Sahib Khatoon with
a brick on her left flank ( ) who died within span of
5/10 minutes. Respondent No. 2 fled away from the scene.
Copy of F.I.R. and better copy are attached as Annex “A &
A/1” respectively.

3. That respondent No. 2 was arrested and found guilty.

Respondent No. 2 applied for post-arrest bail which was
allowed vide order dated 01.4.03. Certified copy of bail
petition and order are attached as Annex “B & C”
respectively.

4. That order dated 01.04.03 is liable to be set aside/cancelled

inter-alia on the following: -

GROUNDS

i) That the impugned order is against the law of natural

justice and law of equity.

ii) That the impugned order is against the prevailing law

and norms of justice.

iii) That the impugned order is illegal, unlawful and

unwarranted under the law.

iv) That the impugned order is capricious, fanciful and

without lawful authority.

v) That the ground on which the concession of bail was

granted, even not agitated in bail petition before the
learned lower court.

vi) That the learned lower court while passing the bail
order misconstrued the illustration cited in the said
order. The weapon of offence in this case a brick of full
size (9” x 4” x 2.5”) weighing 2½ Kg. which is in
ordinary course sufficient to cause death of a person.
 vii) That the learned lower court could not bifurcate the
“Qatal-e-Amad” and “Qatal-e-Shibah-ul-Amad”,
judiciously.

viii) That for the sake of arguments if an offence U/s 316

P.P.C. is made out, then the punishment for the same is
14 years, which falls within the preview of prohibitory
clause.

ix) That the ground of old age is self-explanatory, because

the age of the accused/respondent No. 2 is less than 60
years, which does not fall in the preview of old age.
Neither any proof in respect of age was annexed with
the application nor age was determined by the learned
lower court.

x) That the ground of illness was even neither

substantiated by the previous record, nor any report
was called from the concerned quarters.

xi) That there is sufficient proof/evidence to connect the

accused/respondent No. 2 with the offence and no bail
can be allowed under the law.

xii) That the impugned order caused a great miscarriage of

justice to the applicant and even not sustainable in the
eyes of law.

5. That the contents of the above-titled application are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of June 2003
that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT