Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUSHTAQ AHMED VS Respondent: STATE
1997 M L D 2631
1997 M L D 2631
[Lahore]
Before Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, J
MUSHTAQ AHMED and another‑‑‑Petitioners
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3350/B of 1996, decided on 21st August, 1996.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/365/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Statements of witnesses who had last seen the accused and the deceased together as well as the statements of the witnesses before whom the accused had made extra judicial confession had been recorded more than four months after the occurrence‑‑‑Only circumstantial evidence was available on record against' the accused which was a weak type of evidence‑‑‑Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances.
Sarfaraz Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioners. Mrs. Tasneem Amin Lodhi for the State.
ORDER
Petitioners are accused in case F. I. R. No. 117 of 1995 dated 20‑4‑1995, under section 365/302/34, P.P.C., P.S. Factory Area, Lahore.
2. According to F.I.R., brother of the complainant Muhammad Ashraf left for his place of employment on 18‑4‑1994, but did not return home. Later, a telephone received from Police Station Muridke, regarding the vehicle in which the deceased had travelled having been found in that area, the complainant went and found blood on the driving seat of the Car whereafter the case under section 365, P.P.C. was registered. Later section 302, P.P.C. was added in the case and during investigation the petitioners were found to be involved in the case.
3. The petitioners have applied for grant of bail to them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no incriminating evidence available on the file against the petitioner and recovery of pistol or watch was too belated and otherwise did not connect them with the commission of offence. It was submitted that the F.I.R. was registered on 20‑4‑1995 and evidence of last seen was recorded on 7‑12‑1995 and likewise statements of witnesses of extra judicial confession was also recorded on 27‑8‑1995 and this evidence did not connect the petitioners with the commission of offence. Learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that a watch belonging to the petitioner was recovered on 31‑1‑1996 and a pistol was also recovered earlier on 12‑9‑1995 which evidence connected the petitioners with the commission of offence.
5. The occurrence in this case took place on 18‑4‑1995 and statements of witnesses of last seen were recorded on 27‑8‑1995, wherein they stated that they saw Liaqat and Zulfiqar (deceased) going to Lahore together. Similarly, the statements of witnesses who stated that the accused had made extra judicial confession before them was recorded on 27‑8‑1995. These statements were recorded more than four months after the occurrence. There is only circumstantial evidence available on record against the petitioners which is considered to be a weak type of evidence. The petitioners under the circumstances are allowed bail in the sum of Rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Lahore.
N.H.Q./M‑203/L Bail allowed.