Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainSyed Ijaz Qutab,Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi
2005 Y L R 655
2005 Y L R 655
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Crl. Miscellaneous No.4994‑B of 2003, decided on 29th September, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/109‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused admittedly was not present at the time of alleged occurrence‑‑ Accused during investigation was found innocent‑‑‑Was yet to be seen whether accused ultimately could be held liable for the alleged offence‑‑‑Case against accused, in circumstances, was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr. P. C. calling for further inquiry‑‑‑Case for enlargement of accused on bail having been made out, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Muhammad Sharif v. State 2001 YLR Lah. 2619 ref.
Syed Ijaz Qutab for Petitioner.
Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi for the State.
Umar Hayat, S.‑I. with Police Record.
ORDER
Muhammad Yousaf, the petitioner through the instant petition seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.1.R. No. 186 dated 11‑5‑2003, under sections 302/109, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Saddar Renalakhurd District Okara.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 11‑5‑2003 at about 1‑30 a.m. Shaukat Ali, the son of the petitioner had committed the Qatl‑e‑Amd of his wife Mst. Safia Bibi as a result of conspiracy with him (petitioner).
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that the evidence fabricated by the police of his having conspired with his son to do away with the deceased is absolutely not believable as no father normally would instigate his son to commit the murder of his daughter‑in‑law; that even otherwise, the offence of Qatl‑e‑Amd of the deceased was not in consequence of the alleged conspiracy hatched up by him with his son; that during the investigation he has been found innocent by the police; and that he is behind the bars and previous non‑convict. In support of bail plea reliance has be placed upon the case of Muhammad Sharif v. State 2001 YLR Lahore 2619.
4. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F. I. R. ; and that he has hatched up conspiracy with his son to do away with his daughter‑in‑law and so he sufficiently is connected with the crime.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly, fie along, with his son has hatched up conspiracy to do away with wife of his son.
He admittedly was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence. He during the investigation was found innocent being the allegation levelled against him to be (sic). Hence it is yet to be seen that if he ultimately can be held liable for the alleged offence or not. Hence his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. In this regard reference can also be made to the case of Muhammad Sharif v. State 2001 YLR Lahore 2619. In these circumstances, the case for his enlargement on bail has been made.
7. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑2264/L Bail granted.