Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Respondent: THE STATE
2000 Y L R 1302
2000 Y L R 1302
[Lahore]
Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1947‑B of 1998, decided on 4th November, 1998.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑No motive was attributed to accused in the F.I.R. for causing injuries to the servant of the complainant‑‑‑Accused had been declared innocent by police in two investigations‑‑‑No weapon was recovered from the accused during his physical remand‑‑‑Accused about one year prior to the occurrence had named the complainant as one of the accused for having abetted the murder of his brother‑‑‑Case against accused, in circumstances, called for further inquiry into his guilt‑‑‑Bail was granted to accused in circumstances.
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Aslam for Respondents.
Qamar-ul-Hassan Theem for the
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant as the petitioner was complainant in case F.I.R. No. 338 of 1997, dated 11‑7‑1979, Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal under sections 302, 324, 353, 186/34, P.P.C. read with 109/34, P.P.C. for the murder of his brother. He further submits that there was no motive on the part of the petitioner to have caused injuries to the servant of the complainant namely Muhammad Aslam. He also submits that in two investigations, conducted by D.S.P. Chichawatni and D.S.P. Crime Range Branch Multan, petitioner has been declared innocent, that during physical remand no weapon was recovered from him.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., he was armed with .12 bore gun and caused fire arm injuries on the person of Muhammad Aslam. He further submits that opinion of the police Officers is ,not finding on this Court and moreover without any evidence petitioner has been found innocent. He further submits that earlier case lodged by the petitioner against the present complainant of the F.I.R. was cancelled.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner has been found innocent by the D.S.P. on the ground, that petitioner was falsely implicated due to previous enmity.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the F.I.R. no motive is attributed to the petitioner to have caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Aslam servant of Haji Rasheed Ahmad and in two investigations petitioner was declared innocent. No weapon was recovered from / him during physical remand. Moreover, it is a hard fact, that about one year prior to the present occurrence, petitioner had named the presently complainant Haji Rasheed Ahmad as one of the accused, who had abetted the murder of his brother. All these facts called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner.
5. In this view of the matter, petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like‑amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
N.H.Q./M‑1096/L
Bail allowed.