Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Mian Muhammad JahangirCh. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar,Abdus Salam Sindhu
2004 M L D 2
2004 M L D 2
[Lahore]
Before Mian Muhammad Jahangir, J
MUHAMMAD ANWAR ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3470‑B of 2003, decided on 1st July, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/342/148/337‑A (1)/337‑L(2)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Only act of ineffective firing was attributed to accused in F.I.R.‑‑‑No crime weapon was recovered from accused and accused was not connected with motive‑‑ Accused was no more required by the police for further investigation‑‑ Case against accused being of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner.
Abdus Salam Sindhu for the State.
Date of hearing: 1st July, 2003.
ORDER
Heard.
2. Muhammad, Anwar son of Liaqat Ali, caste Malik, resident of Sahari Hithiar, Tehsil and District Kasur, petitioner, has applied for his post‑arrest bail in the case bearing F.I.R. No.36 of 2003, dated 28‑1‑2003 which stands registered against the petitioner and his companions under sections 302/342/148/149/337‑A(1), 337‑L(2), P.P.C, with Police Station Sadar Kasur.
3. The allegation against the petitioner was that at 3‑00 p.m. on 28‑1‑2003 in the area of Village Sahari Hathiar when Muhammad Latif complainant and his father Muhammad Sharif, Ishfaq Machi, Feroze Din and Mukhtar Ali after saying their prayers in the mosque of the village reached the Mosque Chowk, the petitioner while armed with .12 bore <‑un and his co‑accused Muhammad Akbar armed with pistol, Liaqat Ali armed with gun, Sarwar, Anwar and Javaid also armed with .12 bore guns and Rasheed with Sota in furtherance of their common intention came in the street from the house of Muhammad Akbar and on raising lalkara by Liaquat Ali, Muhammad Akbar fired with his pistol which hit on right side of chest of Muhammad Shafi who yielded to the injuries at the spot, while Muhammad Ashfaq witness was injured with the Sota blow given by Rasheed Ahmad co‑accused and, thereafter, Liaquat Ali, etc. had been firing with their weapons at the spot. The motive behind the occurrence was that about seven or eight days earlier Liaquat Ali co- accused had cut indecent joke to a lady belonging to Muhammad Ishfaq witness on which the deceased and Ishfaq Machhi had given beating to Liaquat Ali. So at the instance of Muhammad Latif the abovesaid case was registered.
4. While refusing bail to the petitioner and his co‑accused Muhammad Javaid, the learned Judge observed that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and that the allegation against them is that of firing at the spot and during investigation they have been found guilty and mere non‑recovery of the crime weapon and registration of cross‑version, cannot be considered sufficient to grant post‑arrest bail to the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that at the most the allegation against the petitioner is that of ineffective firing at the spot; that no crime empty was taken into possession, even during investigation no crime weapon was recovered from the petitioner; that the injuries suffered by Muhammad Ishfaq witness were attributed to Rasheed Ahmad co‑accused who has been allowed hail by this Court vide order dated 12‑6‑2003, that cross‑version has also been brought on the record and it is yet to be resolved as to who was aggressor at the spot and that the question with regard to common intention or common object has to be thrashed out at the stage of trial, therefore, in view of above circumstances it is a case of further inquiry, which have been opposed by the learned State counsel who submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, it is not a fit case for bail.
6. The contents of the F.I.R. would reveal that the act of ineffective firing attributed to the petitioner and others started when the co‑accused Muhammad Akbar had already, fired at the deceased and even the witness was injured which means that had there been any intention to' kill, the petitioner could fire straight towards the members of the complainant party. No crime weapon could be recovered from the petitioner. Petitioner is not connected with the motive. He is no more required by the police for further investigation. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, if is a case of further inquiry to the extent of this petitioner.
Consequently, petitioner is al owe bail subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.200,000 (rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge Kasur.
Petition is hereby accepted.
H.B.T./M‑2331/L Bail granted.