Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM ABBAS SHAH VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-ZamanAbid Saqi,Sohail Taiq
2007 Y L R 1759
2007 Y L R 1759
[Lahore]
Before Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J
GHULAM ABBAS SHAH---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.7525-B of 2005, heard on 20th December, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.394 & 411---Bail, refusal of---Accused though was not named in the F.I.R., but on the same day injured witnesses, while making statements under S.161, Cr. P. C., had specifically stated that it was accused who along with driver while breaking open the door entered into the house, caused injuries to them and thereafter took away their belongings---In the light of the statements of injured witnesses who had no axe to grind against accused, no ground for bail was made out---Bail was declined.
Abid Saqi for Petitioner.
Sohail Taiq for the State.
Muhammad Akram Khan, S.-I.
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.968 of 2004, dated 25-12-2004 registered under sections 394/411, P.P.C. at Police Station, South Cantt., Lahore on the grounds that he had been falsely involved in this case on the .mere suspicion, he was never put to the test of identification parade and that during the investigation fake recovery was planted on him. If the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is even then only offence under section 411, P.P.C. is attracted which is punishable for three years' R.I. Further submits that there was a delay of sixteen hours in lodging the F.I.R. Conversely, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application.
2. After going through the record, I have observed that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but on the same day injured witness namely Javaid Sehgul, Mst. Tareen Sehgul and Security Guard namely Zoqa Khan while making statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. had specifically, stated that it was the petitioner who along with driver while breaking open the door entered into the house caused injures to them and thereafter took away their .belonging.
In the light of the statements of injured witnesses who have no axe to grind against the petitioner, no ground for bail is made out. Dismissed.
H.B.T./G-19/L Bail refused.