Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MST. SHAMSHAD BEGUM VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD IRSHAD
1976 P Cr
1976 P Cr. L J 193
[Lahore]
Before Aslam Riaz Hussain, J
Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD AND 17 OTHERS‑--Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No. "1432/B of 1975, decided on 9th May 1975.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--
‑‑-S. 497(5)‑--Bail, cancellation of‑Investigation already completed and challan filed in Court‑Held, cancellation of bail and arrest of accused at this stage would serve no purpose‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307, 452, 324, 148 & 149‑[Bail].
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.
Respondents Nos. 1 to 10 in person.
Rafiq Ahmed Bajwa for Respondents No. 11 to 18.
Date of hearing: 7th May 1975.
ORDER
This is an application by Mst. Shamahad Begum under section 497(5), Cr. P. C. for the cancellation of bail of the respondents Nos. 1 to 17 whose names have been mentioned in the heading of the application.
2. The allegations made against the respondents by Mst. Shamshad Begum petitioner, in the F. I. R. lodged by her on 17‑11‑1974 are briefly that they alongwith some others forced their way into her house situated on the Lower Mall near the new hostel of the Government College, Lahore and caused injuries on her and broke the furniture and the radio in her house.
3. The respondents were granted bail by Muhammad Naseem, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore by his order dated 15‑3‑1975. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the facts and the nature of the allegation and the injuries caused by the respondents to Mst. Shamshad Begum, the former (i.e. the respondents) should not have been granted bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that there is a dispute between the parties for the allotment and possession of some evacuee property and that a day earlier i.e. on 16‑11‑1974 petitioner party bad attacked the house of the respondent party and an F. I. R. had been lodged in that connection and that Mst. Shamshad Begum had lodged the F. I. R. against the respondents on the next day merely as a measure of retaliation. He also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and the police has even filed the challan in the Court of the learned Ilaqa Magistrate.
4. I have gone through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting pre‑arrest bail to the respondents and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. Considering the facts of the case I find that this is not a case for the reversal of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, specially in view of the fact that the investigation is already complete and challan has been filed in the Court. The arrest of the respondents at this stage would serve no purpose. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
Petition dismissed