Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUMTAZ VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Muhammad Farrukh MahmudKhan Imtiaz Ali Khan,Sh. Arshad Ali
2002 Y L R 3044
2002 Y L R 3044
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
MUMTAZ ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.486‑B of 2002 decided on 13h March, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/337‑A(ii)/285/148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused did not cause any injury to deceased and only role assigned to him was that of causing single blow to prosecution witness‑‑‑Injury on person of prosecution witness was not declared dangerous to life and same was declared as "Shajjah‑i‑Mudihah" punishable with imprisonment for five years‑‑‑Out of eight accused one was found to be innocent during investigation and the other who was armed with rifle and pistol never fired at deceased or any prosecution witness‑‑‑One of the accused who was armed with hatchet, had also used the same from blunt side‑‑‑Whether accused had shared common intention in causing death of deceased, needed further probe by Trial Court after recording of evidence‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail.
Khan Imtiaz Ali Khan for Petitioner.
Sh. Arshad Ali for the State.
Dated of hearing 13th March, 2002.
ORDER
Mumtaz son of Punnun, petitioner, has sought his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.302 of 2001 registered at Police Station Saddar, Arifwala, on 15‑7‑2001, for offences under sections 302/337‑A(ii)/285/148/149, P.P.C.
2. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that 8 persons including the petitioner were involved as accused in this case. Out of the said accused Tanvir and Muhammad Anwar were shown to be armed with pistol and rifle respectively, while Bashir Ahmad was shown to be equipped with Hatchet. The role assigned to the present petitioner is that he caused injury with the stick on the forehead of the P.W. Shah Muhammad.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 30‑7‑2001 and is in judicial lock‑up.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly, the petitioner did not cause any injury to Muhammad Abbas deceased and only role assigned to him is that of causing single blow to Shah Muhammad P.W. The injury on the person of Shah Muhammad was not declared dangerous to life and was also not a fracture and the same was described as "Shajjah‑i‑Mudihah" punishable with imprisonment for five years. Out of the eight accused Pervaiz co‑accused was found to be innocent during investigation. Similarly the co‑accused, who was armed with rifle and pistol never fired at the deceased or any P.W. and caused injuries by the Butts of their weapons. It has also been noticed that co -accused Bashir, who was armed with Hatchet, also used it from the blunt side. In these circumstances, whether the petitioner shared common intention in causing death of Muhammad Abbas needs further probe and inquiry and would be determined by the trial Court after recording of the evidence.
5. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees one lac, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑1194/L Bail granted.