Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAKINA BIBI VS Respondent: ASGHAR ALI
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 2450
[Lahore]
Before Tanvir Ahmed Khan, J
Mst. SAKINA BIBI---Petitioner
Versus
ASGHAR ALI and others---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3844/B of 1993, decided on 28th June, 1994
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Bail, cancellation of-- Murder was blind and accused were not named in F.I.R.---Extra judicial confession allegedly made by accused after one year of the occurrence could not be given any credence at such late stage---Accused had been granted bail by Sessions Court more than two years back after their incarceration for more than one year---Trial was already in progress and accused were not found to have misused the concession of bail---Bail allowed to accused -was not cancelled in circumstances.
Ch. Nazeer Ahmad Gurdaspuri for Petitioner.
Syed Waheed-ur-Rehman Gilani for Respondent No.2
Sh. Ihsan Ahmad for the State.
Date of hearing: 28th June, 1994
ORDER
The petitioner through this application made under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. sought cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos. l and 2 under the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, on 10-5-1992.
2. Facts briefly are that F.I.R. No.209/91 was got recorded on 1-6-1991 under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Chak Jhumra at the instance of Khalid Hussain respecting the murder of his brother Arif Hussain. In the F.I.R. he did not name any person and instead stated that he had no enmity with any person.
3. Cancellation is sought on the ground that during the investigation conducted by Farooq Ahmad, Inspector S.H.O. Police Station Jaranwala, the respondents have been found implicated coupled with their extra judicial confession admitting the guilt.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as learned State Counsel have not supported the petitioner. Occurrence took place in June, 1991. It was a blind murder and respondents were not named therein. The alleged extra judicial confession relied upon by the petitioner is after a period of one year to which no credence can be given at this stage. Respondents were allowed bail after their incarceration for more than one year by the Additional Sessions Judge through his order, dated 10-5-1992. The trial, according to the S.I., is already under progress as such in the circumstances there is no justification for withdrawal of concession of bail granted to the respondents as far back as on 10-5-1992 particularly so when there is no allegation that they have misused this concession. Dismissed.
N.H.Q./S-515/L Petition dismissed.