Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUSHTAQ ALI KHANZADA VS Respondent: STATE
1988 S C M R 927
1988 S C M R 927
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUSHTAQ ALI KHANZADA‑‑Petitioner Versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Petition No.313 of .1987, decided on 2nd December, 1987.
(From the order dated 21st September, 1987 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.15556/B of 1987).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Specific allegation against accused supported by a number of eye‑ witnesses‑‑Challan already submitted in Court‑‑Accused was refused bail by High Court‑‑Leave to appeal sought on the plea that during investigation three or four different versions of occurrence had emerged and fresh investigation had been ordered‑‑Petition dismissed with observation that in case petitioner was found innocent as a result of fresh investigation, it would be open to him to again apply for bail and his prayer would be considered on its own merit.
Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
M . Ismail Qureshir .Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Pervaiz Alamgir, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 21‑9‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, dismissing the bail application of the petitioners who alongwith some others is involved in a case registered at Police Station Wahdat Colony under sections 302 and 307 read with section 149 and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. There is a specific allegation against the petitioner that he fired at and killed one Masud Ahmad Nasir. This allegation is supported by a number of eye‑witnesses who were examined by the police, After investigation a challan has been submitted in the Court.' In the challan, he is cited as one of the accused persons. It is, therefore, not a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the course of investigation, three or four different versions of the occurrence emerged and that the Inspector‑General of Police has directed the Crimes Branch to undertake fresh investigation. This may be so. In the event the petitioner is found innocent as a result of the fresh investigation, it will be open to him to again apply for bail and his prayer in this regard will no doubt be considered on its own merit. With this observation this petition is dismissed.
M. I. /M‑384/S Petition dismissed.