Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice M. Bilal KhanGohar Razzaq Awan,Ms. Tahira Sultan
2006 P Cr
2006 P Cr. L J 1133
[Lahore]
Before M. Bilal Khan, J
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.699/B of 2006, decided on 12th April, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324 & 34---Bail, grant of---Accused earlier applied for his post-arrest bail which was turned clown by the Trial Court---Bail application subsequently filed by accused was withdrawn, direction, however, was issued by High Court to the' Trial Court to conclude trial within three months, but same was not complied with by the Trial Court---Explanation given by the Trial Court, was more like an apology which was acknowledgement of its total helplessness in regulating proceedings in a criminal trial---Police opinion showed that, injury had been caused accidentally to the injured---Accused was in jail for the last sixteen months---Culpability of accused in view of the findings of Investigating Officer, would be determined at the time of trial---Complainant was deliberately avoiding to produce his evidence and was deploying various obstruction ploys---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Gohar Razzaq Awan for Petitioner.
Ms. Tahira Sultan for the State.
Muhammad Iqbal, A.S.-I., Police Station Kotwali, District Jhang with police file.
ORDER
M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Muhammad Ashraf son of Manak, the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.607 of 2004, dated 2-12-2004, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhang, for offences under section 324/34, P.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution, as it unfolded in the F.I.R., registered at the instance of Muhammad Siddique son of Hidayat, the complainant, was that his son Habib Ahmad's marriage was to be held on 3-12-2004 and in order to celebrate the wedding on 1-12-2004 he along with his son Aziz Ahmad, Zawar Hussain son of Gul Muhammad, Muhammad Farooq son of Allah Ditta, Allah Ditta son of Faiz Muhammad and other relatives and friends, was present in an empty plot at Chah Thanewala when all of a sudden Muhammad Ashraf petitioner armed with .7 mm rifle Muhammad Hussain son of Ghulam Hussain, resident of Abbaspur, , Muhammad Akram son of Nazar Muhammad resident of Naqadpura and Muhammad Shafi son of Muhammad Ramzan resident of Chahwala, Police Station Jhang City, came to their Dera; Muhammad Shafi raised Lalkara calling upon his companions that Zawar Hussain and Aziz Ahmad be taught a lesson for getting his brother Imran married to the girl of Machhi; simultaneously Muhammad Ashraf fired with his rifle which hit his son in front of his chest; Muhammad Hussain snatched rifle from Muhammad Ashraf and made second fire shot at Zawar Hussain hitting him in his chest. Both of them fell on the ground unconsciously; thereafter the accused persons fled from the scene; Muhammad Ashraf was apprehended by the angry people who also subjected him to physical beating.
The motive according to the complainant was that brother of Muhammad Shafi namely Imran had solemnized Nikah with a girl of Machhi caste, eight/nine months ago and Zawar Hussain was the witness of Nikahnama due to which Muhammad Shafi was aggrieved. Resultantly they had assaulted the complainant party.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 15-12-2004. He applied for his post-arrest bail which was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang on 24-5-2005. Thereafter he approached this Court for bail by means of Criminal Miscellaneous No.5115/B of 2005: The said application had been withdrawn on 18-10-2005, however, a direction was issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within three months of the receipt of the said order. The petitioner had approached this Court again through the instant petition and on 1-2-2006. I had asked the learned trial Court to explain as to why the direction of this Court had not been complied with. The explanation offered by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Jhang makes pathetic reading inasmuch it appears that the trial Court had not taken any notice of the direction of this Court. The case had been dealt with in routine run-of-the-mill manner and had been adjourned on fortnightly basis, totally oblivious of the fact that there was a direction of this Court. The explanation given by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30 reads more like an apology. It is an acknowledgement of his total helplessness in regulating proceedings in a criminal trial. Even otherwise, according to the police opinion the injury had been caused accidentally to the injured persons inasmuch the same fire shot after hitting Aziz Ahmad had struck Zawar Hussain also. As far as Zawar Hussain injured is concerned his Medico-legal report is not available on the record. The A petitioner is admittedly in jail since 15-12-2004 and as such is in custody for the last sixteen months. In view of the findings of the Investigating Officer the culpability of the petitioner needs to be determined at the time of trial. It has also been observed that the complainant is deliberately avoiding to produce his evidence and is deploying various obstructive ploys.
4. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-183/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.