Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: LIAQAT ALI VS Respondent: STATE
1989 M L D 4156
1989 M L D 4156
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J
LIAQAT ALI‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1111‑B of 1989, decided on 15th April, 1989,
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail‑‑Accused not alleged to have caused any injury to any one‑‑Only allegation against accused was that he alongwith other accused resorted to firing which remained ineffective‑‑Accused admitted to bail in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachar for Petitioner.
Najma Sharif for the State.
ORDER
Liaqat Ali petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and three others under section 302/34 P.P.C.
2. The prosecution version is that on 2‑7‑1988 at 7 p.m. Bashir Ahmad complainant, his sons Sarfraz and Iqbal and relatives Jalal and Niaz Ahmad were present in their Haveli when co‑accused Azam, armed with a rifle, his brother Liaqat petitioner, armed with a .12 bore gun, and their friends Maqsud and Maqbul, also armed with .12 bore guns, appeared at the Rajbah in front of the door of the Haveli. They called out Sarfraz and when he stepped forward Azam fired his rifle hitting him in the chest, as a result of which he died at the spot. Thereafter, all the accused started firing and went away taking their weapons with them.
The motive alleged in the F.I.R. was that Jalal PW, who happens to be the maternal‑uncle of Sarfraz deceased, had demanded arrears of land revenue from Azam, over which the latter insulted him and thereupon Sarfraz deceased and Manzur Ahmed took away the wheel and crank of the tubewell which Azam owned jointly with Manzur Ahmad and Muhammad Arif. ,
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no injury to any one has been attributed to the petitioner and two co‑accused, namely, Maqsud and Maqbul: having been found innocent, were not challaned, therefore, F.I.R. version is false.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. She states that the petitioner is named in a promptly lodged F.I.R. with a specific role; he was armed with a fire‑arm and had resorted to firing, therefore, no ground for bail is made out.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar in the light of material available on the record. The petitioners is not alleged to have caused any injury to any one. The only allegation against him is that he alongwith the other accused resorted to firing which remained ineffective. In the circumstances I feel inclined to the view that a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. I therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Okara.
M.Y.H./L‑67/L
Bail granted.