Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAHZAD JEHANGIR VS Respondent: STATE
1997 M L D 2974
1997 M L D 2974
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Muhammad Asif Jan, JJ
SHAHZAD JEHANGIR‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.956‑B of 1997, decided on 7th April, 1997.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/452/337‑A(i)/148 & 149‑- Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused claimed grant of bail contending that role attributed to him was doubtful and that he was found innocent by Deputy Superintendent Police‑‑‑Statements made by Deputy Superintendent Police showed that investigation conducted by him was cursory in nature ‑‑‑Challan having been submitted, case of petitioner was not fit for grant of bail.
Ijaz Ahmad Qureshi and Altaf Hussain for Petitioner.
Muhammad Arif Yaqoob Khan for the State.
Saif Ullah Buttar for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 7th April, 1997.
ORDER
The petitioners alongiwth five others are accused of the commission of offence under section 302/324/452/337‑A(i) read with section 148/ 149, P.P.C.
According to the F.I.R., the petitioner alongwith his associates had trespassed into the house of the complainant side and had caused injuries to six inmates of the house as a result of which, one person died while the rest received 22 injuries in all.
In support of this bail application, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the role attributed to the petitioner is doubtful. Although, he was armed with a Sota yet Sota injury has been attributed to two persons. It is further contended that the petitioner was found innocent by D.S.P. Tahir Mahmood. We have gone through the statement of the D.S.P. and in our view, the investigation conducted by him is cursory in nature. However, we would not further comment upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either side. The challan in this case has been submitted, therefore, we do not find it a case for the grant of bail. Hence this petition is dismissed.
However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of this case as expeditiously as possible.
H.B.T./S‑127/L Bail refused.