Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD LATIF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Tanvir Bashir AnsariCh. Tahir Mehmood,Muhammad Ali Chughtai
2006 Y L R 2904
2006 Y L R 2904
[Lahore]
Before Tanvir Bashir Ansari, J
MUHAMMAD LATIF---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6841-B of 2004, decided on 13th October, 2004.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 447/337-H(ii)/506/511---Bail, grant of---Accused had allegedly made ineffective firing only---Gun recovered in the case was the licensed gun of the co-accused who had obtained the same on Superdari---Said co-accused had already been enlarged on bail---None of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Ch. Tahir Mehmood for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ali Chughtai for the State.
ORDER
TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J.--This is an application for grant of post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.82 of 2004 registered under sections 447/337-H(ii)/506/511, P. P. C. at Police Station B-Division District Okara.
2. According to the complainant Abdul Sattar the petitioner Muhammad Lateef armed with a .12 bore gun along with his co-accused namely Bashir Ahmed armed with Sota, Sher Muhammad armed with Sota tresspassed into the house of the complainant on 30-3-2004 at 11-00 a.m. It is alleged that Muhammad Lateef petitioner caused fire-arm shots at the wife and children of the complainant who were, however, not hurt. Sher Muhammad and Bashir co-accused have been attributed blows to the complainant with their Sotas.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences mentioned in F.I.R. do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Also submits that .12 bore gun attributed to be possessed by the petitioner was in fact the licensed weapon of Sher Muhammad co-accused. The said Sher Muhammad has been enlarged on bail. He has also obtained the gun upon Superdari. It is further submitted that only role attributed to the petitioner is that of ineffective firing. Submits that the petitioner is entitled to bail as he is able to make out a case of further inquiry and also on the ground of consistency as his co-accused Sher Muhammad has been enlarged on bail.
4. Conversely, grant of bail has been opposed by the learned State counsel on the ground that not only is the petitioner nominated in the F.I.R., a specific role has been attributed to him. The fact that no one was injured as a result of firing by the petitioner would not absolve the petitioner of the offence.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. The offences contained in the F.I.R. do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is established on the record that .12 bore gun A has been obtained on Superdari by Sher Muhammad as it was his licensed arm. Sher Muhammad has himself been enlarged on bail. Only ineffective firing has been alleged against the petitioner.
7. In view of the fore-going the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of' Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N.H.Q./M-1294/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.