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 Tariq ShamimCh. Muhammad Aslam Bajwa,Iqbal Hussain
2007 Y L R 1699
2007 Y L R 1699
[Lahore]
Before Tariq Shamim, J
MUHAMMAD AMJAD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6593-B of 2006, decided on 18th September, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-F(iii), 337-L(ii), 337-F(v), 452 & 34---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Two investigations in the case were conducted, one, by Sub-Inspector and other by Superintendent of Police (Investigation) and in both the Investigations, accused and his co-accused were declared innocent---Opinion of the Investigating Officer, though was not binding on the court, but, if same was based on tangible material, as in the present case, it could not be lightly brushed aside and had to be considered---Record had revealed that opinion of Investigating Officer, was that accused and his co-accused were not present at the place of occurrence and that there was possibility that complainant received injuries on account of fall---Other two co-accused having already been granted bail, in view of rule of consistency, accused was also entitled to the same concession---Offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were punishable upto 5 years' imprisonment which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Grant of bail, in such-like cases was a rule and refusal was an exception---Investigation of case was complete, challan had been submitted in the court and accused who was behind the bars for the last about 4 months was no more required for any further investigation---Tentative assessment of the evidence on the record revealed that the case of accused was one of further inquiry as presently enough evidence was not available on record to connect him with the commission of offence alleged against him---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Aslam Bajwa for Petitioner.
Iqbal Hussain for the State with Zafar Iqbal, A.S.-I.
ORDER
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 167, dated 6-5-2006 for offences under sections 337-F(iii), 337-L(ii), 337-F(v), 452/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sabz Pir District Sialkot.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with two others trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused injuries to her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in two investigations one conducted by the S.I., and the other conducted by the S.P. (Investigation), the petitioner and his co-accused Baqir Ali were declared innocent
as according to the Investigating Officers both of them were not present at the place of occurrence; that there was likelihood of the injuries received by the complainant a result of fall; that the other co-accused of the petitioner who were allegedly armed with Chhuri and brick and had caused injuries to the complainant had been granted bail after arrest by the learned trial Court; that the challan had been submitted and the petitioner was no more required by the police for any further investigation who was behind the bars for the last about 4 months. As such, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Two investigations in the case were conducted, one by S.I. and the other by S.P. (Investigation), and in both the investigations the petitioner and his father namely Baqir Ali co-accused were declared innocent. Although the opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding on the Court, nevertheless, if the same is based on tangible material as in the instant case, it cannot be lightly brushed aside and has to be considered. Further, the record reveals that it was opined by the Investigating Officer that the petitioner and his co-accused were not present at the place of occurrence and that there was a possibility of the complainant receiving injuries on account of a fall. The other two co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and keeping in view the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same 'concession. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. are punishable with up to 5 years' imprisonment which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such-like cases the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. The Investigation is complete, the challan has been submitted in the Court and the petitioner is no more required for any further investigation, who is behind the bars for the last about 4 months. Tentative assessment of the evidence on the record reveals that the case of the petitioner is one of further enquiry as there is presently not enough evidence available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offences alleged against him.
7. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-217/L Bail granted.