Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad AslamKhawar Mahmood,Ahmad Rauf DPG
2007 M L D 889
2007 M L D 889
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J
MUHAMMAD AFZAL---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.752-B of 2007, decided on 21st February, 2007.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34/109---Bail, grant of---Accused was not named in F.I.R.---Complainant after one month and eighteen days of occurrence moved an application charging accused and four others for the murder of his deceased father---About more than a month thereafter complainant in his supplementary statement took a complete somersault stating to have seen the accused and his co-accused committing the murder of the deceased---Complainant had taken different stands on three occasions and he could not be explicitly relied upon---Accused was found innocent in four successive investigations---One co-accused had been exonerated later on by the complainant---Involvement of accused in the case, prima facie, was doubtful---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Khawar Mahmood for Petitioner.
Ahmad Rauf DPG for the State along with Ashiq S.-I. with record.
Shahid Tabbassum for the Complainant.
ORDER
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 641, dated 30-9-2006 registered under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C. with Police Station, Sadar Chiniot District Jhang.
2. Precisely case of the prosecution as narrated in the F.I.R. is that on the night of 29/30-9-2006 at 2-00 a.m. Noor Muhammad deceased was sleeping near his cattle shed while complainant Maqbool Ahmad and the P.Ws. were sleeping on the roof of their house. At 2-00 a.m., they got up and saw in the light of an electric bulb that four unknown persons armed with deadly weapons are standing near the cot of Noor Muhammad deceased in the presence of the complainant and the P.Ws. one of the unknown person caused fire at the backside of deceased and all the accused fled away while brandishing their weapons. Noor Muhammad died at the spot. Case was registered against unknown persons. Later on 18-11-2006 complainant filed an application to S.H.O. whereby present petitioner, along with other co-accused, was nominated.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., registered on 30-9-2006 at the instance of the complainant Maqbool son of the deceased. In application on 18-11-2006, delayed by one month and 18 days, petitioner and four others were charged of having done the deceased to death on the abetment of Kameera son of Ilyas. Conversation between Kameera and Afzal about the disputed Ihata of Noor Muhammad and Kameera directing Afzal and others to murder Noor Muhammad and he will take the responsibility was heard by Muhammad Yousaf and Javed Iqbal. Notwithstanding the above, on 21-12-2006 he got recorded his supplementary statement taking complete somersault to his narration in the F.I.R. and the application, dated 18-11-2006. He stated to have eye-witnessed the petitioner and his co-accused committing murder of the deceased. Maqbool has been changing his version. He took different stand on three occasions and cannot be relied upon explicitly. In four successive investigations petitioner was found innocent. Aggrieved of finding of innocence, the complainant filed a private complaint in Court. Yet, another fact cannot be lost sight of. Abdul Satar alias Sattari, co-accused of the petitioner was also involved in the case but later on was exonerated by the complainant and did not dispute his discharge from the case. Involvement of the petitioner in the case, prima facie, is not proved presently beyond reasonable doubt from the material collected by investigating agencies.
5. For what has been discussed above, his petition is accepted. The petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
N.H.Q/M-125/L Bail allowed.