Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM RASOOL VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Aqeel Ahmed AbbasiIrshad Ali R. Chandio
2011 P Cr
2011 P Cr. L J 971
[Karachi]
Before Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J
GHULAM RASOOL---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. S-706 of 2010, decided on 24th January, 2011.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Bail, refusal of---Accused had been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of having fired with T.T. pistol at deceased---Contention of counsel for accused was that as the complainant and prosecution witness had extended their no-objection, accused was entitled to be released on bail---Validity---Complainant and the eye-witness had extended only their no-objection, if accused was admitted to bail and had not exonerated accused from the alleged crime---Even otherwise, the complainant and said eye-witness were not the legal heirs of the deceased---Bail application of accused, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Irshad Ali R. Chandio for the Applicant.
Qazi Muhammad Bux, State Counsel.
ORDER
AQEEL.AHMED ABBASI, J.---Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by order passed by learned V-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur in Criminal Bail Application No.98 of 2010, Crime No.86 of 2008, under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Lakhi Gate, Shikarpur, whereby the present applicant/accused has been declined the bail vide order dated 12-11-2010, the applicant/accused has approached this Court seeking bail.
2. Along with his bail application, the applicant/accused has filed affidavits of no-objection of one Mazzhar Ali son of Hussain Bux, the complainant, and Barkat Ali son of Kamal, the prosecution witness, in the instant case.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that since the applicant/accused has been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role, he would press the instant bail application in view of affidavits of no-objection filed by the complainant .and prosecution witness. According to the learned Counsel, since the main prosecution witnesses i.e., the complainant and another eye-witness have extended their no objection, the applicant/accused is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Muhammad Nawaz alias Najja N. The State, reported as 1991 SCMR 111 and case of Muhammad Najeeb v. The State, reported as 2009 SCMR 448.
4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail, on the ground that since the applicant/ accused has been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role and the crime is heinous one, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. On tentative assessment of the record, it appears that the applicant/ accused has been nominated in the. F.I.R. with specific role for having fired with. T.T. Pistol at deceased Muhammad Panjal, who later-on died. There are eye-witnesses of the alleged incident and the matter is proceeding before the learned trial Court. As regards affidavits of the complainant and eye-witness, it appears that the complainant and the eye-witness have not exonerated the applicant from the alleged crime and they have only extended their no objection if the applicant is admitted to bail. It further appears that the complainant and the prosecution witness are not the legal heirs of the deceased.
7. In the reported case of Muhammad Nawaz, alias Najja (supra), the prosecution witnesses appeared in Court and filed their affidavits to the effect that accused was not implicated in the occurrence. Under those circumstances, the petitioner was admitted to bail.
8. Similarly, in the case of Muhammad Najeeb (supra), the complainant had initially nominated the accused in the F.I.R., but later on through an affidavit he had expressed his satisfaction with regard to the innocence of the accused and further stated that he did not want to proceed with the matter. Under the circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it appears to be a case of further enquiry.
9. Since, in the instant case, there is no such affidavit of the complainant or the eye-witness, exonerating the applicant/accused from the commission of instant crime, therefore, reliance by the learned Counsel for the applicant on the above referred cases is misconceived and of no avail. Accordingly, I do not fund any merits in the instant bail application, which is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./G-13/K Bail refused.