Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SABIR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Tassaduq Hussain JilaniMian Arshad Latif,Ibrahim Farooq
2002 Y L R 698
2002 Y L R 698
[Lahore]
Before Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J
SABIR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2859‑B of 2001, decided on 27th February, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused had not been named in the F.I.R.‑‑‑No motive had been alleged by the Wajtakkar witnesses who allegedly saw the accused and another running away at the time of occurrence‑‑‑No recovery had been effected from the accused who had been behind the bars for more than a year and the trial had not yet commenced‑‑ Case of the accused calling for further inquiry, he was granted bail.
Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioner.
Ibrahim Farooq for the State.
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.20 of 2001 dated 31‑1‑2001 under sections 302/34, P.P.C., Police Station Dajal, District Rajanpur wherein it is alleged that the complainant's brother Lal Bakhsh used to live with his in -laws; that on the fateful night his father‑in- law came to the complainant and informed him that Lal Bakhsh went to have a round of his cotton field where he was fired upon by unknown assailants and he was seriously injured. None was named as accused. The said Lal Bakhsh ultimately succumbed to the injuries and died.
During investigation statements of two witnesses were recorded who had allegedly seen the petitioner and another person running away from the place near the spot and one of them was carrying a rifle. They were ultimately challaned in this case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that there is no eye‑witnesses of the occurrence; that there is no incriminating recovery from the petitioner; that there is no motive either and that in any case the question of petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence requires further inquiry.
3. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition by submitting that two witnesses of Waj‑Takkar have nominated the petitioner to be one of those who were running away and there is no reason why they should falsely implicate the petitioner.
5. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Admittedly, no motive was alleged by the Waj‑Takkar witnesses who allegedly saw the petitioner and another running away at the time of occurrence. Nothing was recovered from the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence. He is behind the bars for more than a year and the trial has not commenced. In these circumstances the question of petitioner's guilt would require further inquiry. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and subject to petitioner's furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail.
S.M.A./S‑483/L Bail allowed.