Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Syed Shabbar Raza RizviN.A. Butt,Asif Mehmood Cheema
2008 M L D 905
2008 M L D 905
[Lahore]
Before Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J
MUHAMMAD AFZAL---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5758-B of 2007, decided on 1st October, 2007.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 34 & 109---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against accused was that he was present at the time of occurrence and raised Lalkara---No recovery had been effected from accused during the course of investigation---Accused though was shown in the F.I.R. as armed with rifle, but Investigating Officer had failed to ascribe him any active role except his presence empty-handed at the spot---Motive was also not attributed to accused---Accused was behind the bars since his arrest and trial had not commenced---Such circumstances had provided sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of accused---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
N.A. Butt for Petitioner.
Asif Mehmood Cheema, Deputy Prosecutor General.
ORDER
SYED SHAHBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The learned counsel has filed this bail application for post arrest bail of Muhammad Afzal, petitioner. The petitioner stands named in F.I.R. No. 386 of 2006, dated 5-7-2006. The said F.I.R. was registered under sections 302, 34 and 109, P.P.C. at Police Stations Kot Moman, District Sargodha.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the complainant and his deceased son, Shahzad Ahmad Naeem were sowing in their fields that suddenly petitioner and two other co-accused appeared. Co-accused Fayyaz fired three shots with his .12 bore gun hitting on the back of deceased, Shahzad Ahmad Naeem. According to the F.I.R., the deceased expired as a result of the said injuries. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that the raised lalkara.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab. As noted above, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the time of occurrence and raised lalkara. During the course of investigation, no recovery has been effected from him. Though he is shown in the F.I.R. as armed with rifle, but the Investigation Officer has failed to ascribe him any active role except his presence empty-handed. For the same reason, no recovery has been effected from him. The motive is also not attributed to him. The petitioner was arrested on 7-9-2006 and since then he has been behind the bars. The trial has not commenced yet. The above circumstances provide sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of the petitioner. Thus, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released if not required in any other case subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Area Magistrate.
H.B.T./M-58/L Bail granted.