Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WASIM NIAZ VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 M L D 321
1988 M L D 321
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
WASIM NIAZ‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2086/B of 1988, heard on 28th June, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307/34‑‑Bail,.grant of‑‑Accused alongwith co‑accused coming armed with fire‑arms, firing and hitting deceased‑ Out of four eye‑witnesses, two not naming accused in their statements under S. 1154, Cr. P. C. though naming him before police‑‑Other two eye‑witnesses still intact‑‑Reasonable grounds existing for believing that accused had committed offence falling within prohibitory clause‑‑Bail refused in circumstances.
Kh. Muhammad Afzal for Petitioner.
Miss Yaseen Sehgal for State.
ORDER
This is an application for the grant of bail to Waseem Niaz petitioner under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Factory Area, Faisalabad, vide FIR No. 474 dated 11‑9‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and three others in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Muhammad lqbal alias Kaka on Dijkot Road within the limits of Police Station, Factory Area, Faisalabad.
3. As far the petitioner, it has been alleged that he was armed with a revolver and alongwith co‑accused had fired shot hitting the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that the two eye witnesses namely Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Saeed (injured PW) in their statements recorded by the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. have not named the petitioner as an offender. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to pursuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that there are four eye‑witnesses of the occurrence, out of whom only two witnesses have not named the petitioner as an offender in their statements recorded by the Magistrate although in their statements before the police recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., they had fully involved the petitioner m the commission of the crime; that the statements of Lal A Hussain complainant and Muhammad Ramzan PW are still intact; that the statement of Muhammad Ashraf PW was recorded by the Magistrate after five months of the occurrence; that the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence. He not only came to the spot alongwith his co‑accused duly armed with fire‑arms but had also fired shot from his revolver hitting the deceased, so in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C.
For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed.
S.A./W‑38/L
Bail refused.