Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NASEER AHMAD VS Respondent: TLIFAIL HUSSAIN
1992 M L D 1874
1992 M L D 1874
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Riaz Ahmad, J
NASEER AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
TLIFAIL HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
Criminal Misc. No.425‑B of 1992, decided on 19th April, 1992.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Trial Court had allowed bail to accused considering his case as one of further inquiry‑‑‑No exception could be taken to the exercise of the discretion by the Trial Court‑‑‑Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly.
Sh. Naveed Sheharyar for Petitioner.
Abdul Waahid for Respondent.
Shahbaz Saeed Sajid for the State.
ORDER
This is an. application seeking cancellation of bail allowed to the respondent in a case registered against him under the provision of section 302, P.P.C. Initially, the respondent was not named in the F.I.R. but subsequent thereto, on account of a supplementary statement made by the complainant and three eye‑witnesses, he was implicated in this case. A revolver was also recovered from him after six days of the occurrence but since no empty was found from the place of occurrence, therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while allowing bail did not attach any importance to the aforesaid recovery.
According to the learned counsel, it was the case of the petitioner himself that he had fired but it was an accidental fire. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was also persuaded to admit the petitioner to bail on the ground of failure of three eye‑witnesses to report the occurrence immediately to the complainant or any other authority. Hence, considering the case of being one of further enquiry, the bail was allowed to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent was the solitary accused and there was overwhelming evidence against him and, therefore, the discretion exercised in his favour was not in consonance with law.
I have considered all the aspects of the case and I am of the view that no exception can be taken to the exercise of the discretion by the Court below. However, I would not express any opinion at this stage, lest it may prejudice either side in Court. Similarly, I direct the learned Addl. Sessions Judge not to be persuaded by the order passed by this Court or considerations for the grant of bail while determining the guilt or innocence of the respondent. The challan has already been submitted. I would, therefore, direct the learned trial Judge to proceed with the trial expeditiously so that the same stands concluded within a period of three months.
With these observations, this petition stands dismissed.
N.H.Q./N‑61/L Petition dismissed.