Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN alias KHAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Rauf Ahmad SheikhAbid Hussain Bhutta
2013 M L D 798
[Lahore]
Before Rauf Ahmad Sheikh, J
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN alias KHAN---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4817/B of 2012, decided on 22nd November, 2012.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/148/149---Qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Case of two versions---Delay in lodging F.I.R.---Non-disclosure of injuries sustained by opposite side---Accused allegedly raised a lalkara and held the accused in his hand, whereafter co-accused persons gave hatchet and stick blows to the deceased---F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of about six hours---Accused was admittedly empty handed---Cross-version case was already under investigation---Accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. were also injured during the occurrence and they were medically examined on the same day-Injuries sustained by accused persons were not mentioned by the complainant---Case was of two versions and it would be determined only after recording evidence and appraisal thereof as to who had in fact launched the aggression---Accused was no more required for further investigation---Although charge had been framed but statement of even a single witness had not been recorded so far---Case was one of further inquiry---High Court allowed bail to the accused with the observation that allegation of raising 'lalkara' and holding someone in the arms was usually levelled in our society by throwing a wider net, therefore, such accusation should always be scrutinized with care and caution.
Ali Sheharyar v. The State 2008 SCMR 1448 ref.
Shoukar Ilahi v. Javed Iqbal and others 2010 SCMR 966; Muhammad Ibrahim alias Bawa v. The State 2007 MLD 1056 and Gul Bahar and another v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1277 distinguished.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 497 & 221---Bail---Framing of charge---Effect---Where case for grant of bail was made out on merits, then same could not be withheld merely due to framing of charge.
Abid Hussain Bhutta for Petitioner.
Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, Deputy Prosecutor General with Shah Nawaz, S.-I. for the State.
Ch. Khalid Mehmood Arain for the Complainant.
ORDER
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.159 of 2012 dated 12-6-2012 Police Station Chab Kalan District Khanewal under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as embodied in the F.I.R. recorded on the application of Ahmad Yar complainant is that at about 7-00 p.m. on 11-6-2012 the petitioner, while empty handed along with his co-accused persons, who were armed with sotas, hatchets and fire-arms made an attack on Nawab etc. Allegedly the petitioner raised 'lalkara' and held Nawab in his arms and thereafter his co-accused Hussain Bakhsh gave hatchet blow on his head and Mumtaz gave sota blow on his foot, whereas his co-accused gave a blow with wrong side of the hatchet on the head of Riaz P.W.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner, according to the prosecution version, was empty handed and has not caused any injury to the deceased or injured P.W.; that in fact the complainant party had made aggression and caused injuries to Hashim, Saleem and Mumtaz etc., which have not been disclosed in the F.I.R.; that the cross version has been put forth and the matter is still under investigation; that the above-mentioned injured persons were also examined on the date of occurrence so the possibility of self infliction stands ruled out and that it is a case of two versions so needs further probe and inquiry. In support of the contentions reliance is placed on "Ali Sheharyar v. The State" (2008 SCMR 1448).
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition. It was contended that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R.; that he facilitated his co-accused in accomplishment of their designs by holding the deceased in his arms; that the charge has been framed and the case is fixed for evidence and that under section 149, P.P.C. he is responsible for all the offences, committed during occurrence. In support of the contentions reliance is placed on "Shoukar Ilahi v. Javed Iqbal and others" 2010 SCMR 966, "Muhammad Ibrahim alias Bawa v. The State" (2007 MLD 1056 Lahore) and "Gul Bahar and another v. The State" (2002 PCr.LJ 1277 Karachi).
5. There is a delay of about six hours in lodging the F.I.R. The petitioner was admittedly empty handed. The allegations of raising 'lalkara' and holding someone in the arms are usually leveled in our society by throwing a wider net so such accusation should always be scrutinized with care and caution. A cross version has already been put forth and same is under investigation. Three accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. were also injured during the occurrence and they were medically examined on the same day. Their injuries are not mentioned by the complainant. It is a case of two versions and it would be determined only after recording the evidence and appraisal thereof as to who had in fact launched the aggression. From this angle, it is a case of further inquiry within the meanings of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The person of the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. The case-law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable on the facts of the present petition. No doubt the charge has been framed but statement of even a single witness has not been recorded so far. It is an established law that if the case for grant of bail is made out on merits the same cannot be withheld merely due to framing of the charge.
6. For the reasons supra the petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail in the sum of Rs.250,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
MWA/M-366/L Bail granted.