Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Asif Saeed Khan KhosaMian Muhammad Nawaz,Muhammad Afzal Sulehri
2005 M L D 949
2005 M L D 949 [Lahore] Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J MUHAMMAD AMJAD---Petitioner versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No.8930-B of 2004, decided on 23rd December, 2004.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380 & 457---Bail, refusal of---Accused had been specifically nominated in F.I.R. as one of the perpetrators of alleged offences and narration of F.I.R. had shown his active participation in the entire transaction---Eye-witnesses mentioned in F.I.R. had so far stood by their statements made before police fully implicating accused in alleged offences---No background of bitterness or ill-will between the complainant party and accused had been pointed out so as to prompt complainant to falsely implicate accused in a case of such a nature---Accused though had not physically entered the house of complainant, but because of his alleged active complicity and involvement in the entire transaction sharing of common intention by accused and his vicarious liability for offences allegedly committed by his co-accused, was, prima facie, quite apparent in the case---Accused was involved in ten other criminal cases pertaining to offences under Ss.381-A, 382, 392 & 411, P.P.C.---Accused allegedly remained fugitive from law in connection with the present case---Prima facie reasonable ground existed to believe in accused's involvement in alleged offences---Accused could not be admitted to bail, in circumstances. Mian Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner. Muhammad Afzal Sulehri for the State.
ORDER Through this petition Muhammad Amjad petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.364 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhang on 2-8-2003 for offence under sections 457/380, P.P.C. 2. The petitioner had been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. as one of the perpetrators of the alleged offences and the narration of the F.I.R. shows an active participation of the petitioner in the entire transaction. It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences. The learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to point out any background of bitterness or ill-will between the complainant party and the petitioner so as to prompt the former to falsely implicate the latter in a case of this nature. The F.I.R. shows that the petitioner had not physically entered the house of the complainant but at the same time because of his alleged active complicity and involvement in the entire transaction sharing of common intention by the petitioner and his vicarious liability for the offences allegedly committed by his co-accused is prima facie quite apparent in this case. The order dated 17-7-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang shows that the petitioner is involved in ten other cases pertaining to offences under sections 381-A, 382, 392 and 411, P.P.C. The petitioner had also statedly remained a fugitive from law in connection with the present case. For all these reasons prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and I have not felt persuaded to admit the petitioner to bail at such a stage. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
H.B.T./M-966/L Bail petition dismissed.