Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Sh. ALLAH DITTA VS Respondent: THE STATE
[Lahore]
Before Qurban Sadiq Ikram, J
Sh. ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1734/B of 1088, decided on 12th June, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner not present at the spot at time of occurrence‑‑Statements of witnesses of abetment recorded with delay of one to three days and one of such witnesses was related to complainant‑‑Petitioner placed in column No. 2 of challan under direction of higher police authorities‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, considering case against him, one of further inquiry, in circumstances.
Kh. Sultan Ahmad for Petitioner.
Muhammad Sharif Butt for the State.
Ch. Riasat Ali for the Complainant.
ORDER
The occurrence in this case took place on 19‑9‑1986, at 6.30 p.m. The F.I.R. was recorded at 8.00 p.m. on the same day at P.S. Satellite Town, Gujranwala at the instance of Abdul Majid complainant. It is alleged in the F.I.R. by Kh. Abdul Majced that he had joint business with Sh. Allah Ditta, the present petitioner, who had to pay him Rs. 8 lacs. About one month earlier, he and Waheed Ahmad Butt, a brother of his wife, went to Sh. Allah Ditta for return of the money. There was quarrel between the parties but they were separated by Ehsan Ullah and Ghulam Sarwar. On 19‑6‑1986, at about 6.30 p.m. Kh. Abdul Majeed complainant, Waheed Ahmad deceased alongwith Saeed and Qurdrat Ullah P.Ws. were present outside their house. Nadeem Sadiq, Farhan Mahmood and Ijaz Munawar, all armed with pistols, came there on a motorcycle. It was stated by Kh. Abdul Majeed complainant that Nadeem Sadiq fired at him. He was not hit as he got aside. Waheed Ahmad tried to proceed towards the accused when Ijaz fired at him with his pistol. He was injured. Farhan accused then fired which also hit Waheed Ahmad. Thereafter, Nadecm Sadiq accused fired which hit the cheek of Waheed Ahmad who fell down. Saeed Ahmad, Qudrat Ullah and Muhammad Afzal P.Ws. raised alarm. The accused left the spot on motorcycle. Kh. Muhammad Afzal P.W. chased the accused in a jeep. The accused fired at him and threw their motorcycle in front of the jeep and ran away. Waheed Ahmad was taken to Civil Hospital where he died as result of injures. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that the accused murdered Wahecd Ahmad at the instance of Sh. Allah Ditta petitioner.
2. In support of this petition it is contended by learned counsel that although the occurrence took place on 19‑9‑1986, but the statements of Sana Ullah and Muhammad Rafiq, two witnesses of abetment, were recorded on 20‑9‑1986; secondly, that Sana Ullah, one of those witnesses, was related to the complainant; thirdly, that statement of Abid Hussain driver, another witness of abetment, was recorded on 22‑9‑1986, fourthly, that after investigation by SP Crimes Branch, Sh. Allah Ditta petitioner was placed in column No. 2 under direction of the IG Police. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner be admitted to bail till decision of the case. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and complainant opposed this petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the trial in the case has already commenced. The copies of previous statements were to be delivered on 1‑6‑1988 but one of the accused was sick and the proceedings, therefore, were adjourned to 14‑6‑1988; that the parties had agreed to be bound by the statement of oath by Khalid Pervaiz, Ghulam Dastgir, Dr. Arshad Javaid and Sh. Riar. They did not make statement on oath in presence of the parties and as such, the opinlbn of police regarding innocence of Sh. Allah Ditta was not correct. It was stated by the learned counsel that an application against SP who declared the petitioner innocent, has been filed before senior Police Officer which is still pending.
3. I have considered the respective contentions on behalf of the parties. It is not denied, by the learned counsel for the complainant, at the Bar that Sana Ullah, one of the witnesses of abetment, was related to the complainant. Admittedly this Sana Ullah was a witness of Nikah of the complainant. The statements of two witnesses of abetment were recorded next day of the occurrence and the statement of third witness was recorded on 22‑9‑1985 i.e. three days after the occurrence. Allah Ditta petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. SP Crimes Branch submitted his report to IG Police under whose order the petitioner was placed in column No. 2 of the challan. In view of these circumstances, I find that the case of Sh. Allah Ditta petitioner was that of further enquiry. He is admitted to bail till decision of the case against him on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety m the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
S.G.D./A‑416/L??????????
Bail granted.