Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAEED AHMAD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Nawaz BhattiM. Shoaib Khan Buzdar,Mehr Irshad Ahmad
2006 M L D 1920
2006 M L D 1920
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J
SAEED AHMAD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1571-B of 2006, decided on 26th June, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 201, 109 & 34---Bail, grant of---Destruction of evidence of offence of capital punish ment---Effect---Allegation against accused/petitioner was that he caused the disappearance of dead body of deceased who had been murdered by his (deceased's) wife and daughter Accused was charged with offence under S.201, P.P.C. which did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused had been involved in the case on statement of co-accused and excepting same there was no other evidence available against accused, which made the case against accused that of further inquiry---Investigation of the case was complete and accused was no more required by police for further investigation---Bail petition was allowed.
M. Shoaib Khan Buzdar for Petitioner.
Mehr Irshad Ahmad for the State.
Abdur Rehman S.-I. with record.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---Petition has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.73 of 2006, dated 26-3-2005 registered under sections 302/201/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station City Leiah.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that Muhammad Yasin remained missing for about ten days. The complainant inquired from the daughter of deceased namely Humaira, who made extra-judicial confession that she and her mother Mst. Shado Mai co-accused had murdered Ghulam Yasin after giving him intoxicated tablets which were brought by Mukhtair Hussain. She also stated that Saeed Ahmad petitioner caused the dead-body to disappear.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case; he is behind the bars, investigation is complete during which the petitioner was not found present at the spot at the time of occurrence and he is no more required by the local police for the purposes of investigation; that no injury has been attributed to the petitioner on the person of deceased. Lastly submits that there is no eye-witness available to the prosecution and case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail and submits that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Allegation against the petitioner is of destroying the evidence of an offence of capital punishment however offence under section 201, P.P.C. does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause. Petitioner has been involved on the statement of co-accused and except it no other evidence is available against him which makes the case against the petitioner that of further inquiry. Petitioner is behind the bars, investigation in the case qua the petitioner is complete and petitioner is no more required by the police for the purposes of further investigation and no useful purpose would be served to put him behind the bars for an indefinite period. Further more the petitioner was not found present at the spot during the course of investigation.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
S.M.B./S-147/L Bail petition allowe