Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Bashir A. MujahidMian Anwaar-ul-Haq Ramay and Maqbool Ahmad Bhatti,Ch. Azmat Khan,Sh. Muhammad Latif
2003 P Cr
2003 P Cr. L J 990
[Lahore]
Before Bashir A. Mujahid, J
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.7352/B of 2001 and 3/B of 2002, decided on 14th January, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss 365/452/302/324/337-H(2)/ 109/148/149---Bail, grant of---Accused were not mentioned in F.I.R., but were nominated after a period of more than one month on a supplementary statement of complainant---Even in said statement, it was stated that accused was driving the truck wherein alleged abductee in the company of other co-accused was traveling---Role attributed to accused was not distinguishable from their co-accused who had already been allowed bail---Submission of challan in Court, was no ground to refuse bail---Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Mian Anwaar-ul-Haq Ramay and Maqbool Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioners.
Sh. Muhammad Latif for the State.
Ch. Azmat Khan for the Complainant.
ORDER
This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.7352/B of 2001 and No.3/B of 2002 as both are outcome of the same F.I.R.
Muhammad Hussain son of Hakim Ali and Muhammad Hussain son of Allah Ditta seek after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.842 of 2000 dated 18-11-2000, under sections 365/452/302/324/337-H(ii)/148/149/109, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Phoolnagar, at the instance of Muhammad Aslam.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners were not nominated in the F.I.R. They were implicated subsequently in supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 22-12-2000 while the F.I.R. was recorded on 18-11-2000. Even in supplementary statement the role attributed to Muhammad Hussain son of Allah Ditta is that he was driving the truck on 21-11-2000 wherein the accused alongwith Barkat Ali, deceased were traveling. While against Muhammad Hussain son of Hakim Ali the evidence is that he was also accompanying the co-accused that co-accused Hakim Ali Ashraf and Noor Muhammad have been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 26-6-2001 through Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2723/B of 2001 and the case of the petitioners is at par with their co-accused and they are also entitled for the same concession.
Conversely, the bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and for the State. Learned counsel for the complainant has further supplemented his contention by arguing that both the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders and were arrested on 3-4-2001. They were present with their co-accused on the day of occurrence and so were nominated by the P.Ws. in their statements and supplementary statement of the complainant was not recorded by the local police under the influence of the accused party; that challan of the case has already been submitted and the trial has commenced, therefore, it is not proper to grant them bail as it may prejudice the case of either of the parties; that their co-accused were allowed bail because they were declared innocent during the investigation.
Heard. Record perused.
The petitioners were not nominated in the F.I.R. They were nominated subsequently on the statement of the complainant which was recorded on 22-12-2000 after a period of more than one month. Even in supplementary statement it was stated that Muhammad Hussain son of Allah Ditta petitioner was driving the truck wherein the alleged abductee in the company of other co-accused was traveling while Muhammad Hussain son of Hakim Ali was also accompanying his co-accused and they were also present at the spot alongwith other co-accused when Barkat Ali was abducted. The role attributed to the petitioners is not distinguishable from their co-accused who have already been allowed bail. Although challan of the case has been submitted in Court but it is no ground to refuse the bail if the case is otherwise made out, and declaring them P.O. is only matter of corroboration if the role attributed to the accused is otherwise established. Therefore, the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the .satisfaction of the triad Court.
H.B.T./M-1726/L Bail granted