Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MOHAMMAD ILYAS alias BULBUL VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 M L D 486
1988 M L D 486
[Lahore]
Before Ijaz Nisar, J
MOHAMMAD ILYAS alias BULBUL‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1144/B of 1988, decided on 12th April, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S‑ 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bad, grant of‑‑Petitioner and his co acussed found innocent during police investigation, and were discharged from the case‑‑Police instead challaned another person under S. 304, P.P, C. for the accidental death of deceased ‑Two versions of the case‑‑Petitioner and his co accused were summoned in private complaint filed by complainant and excepting petitioner all allowed bail‑‑Petitioner also allowed bail, in circumstances.
Haji Muhammad Iqbal Malik for Petitioner.
Zafar Yasin for the State.
ORDER
Muhammad Ilyas alias Bulbul has applied for bail in a case under section 302/34/458, P.P.C. initiated on a complaint filed by Muhammad Javid.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that on 1‑7‑1987 a case under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. was registered on the report of Muhammad Javid aforementioned wherein he alleged that on 1‑7‑1987 at 9 P.M. he and his father Faryad Hussain deceased had gone to the house of Muhammad Ali P.W. to enquire about his health. All of a sudden Muhammad Ilyas petitioner, Gulzar Ahmad armed with revolvers, Muhammad Latif and Abdur Rehman armed with carbines came there. Muhammad Ilyas petitioner fired at Muhammad Ali who escaped unhurt and the bullet hit Faryad Hussain deceased.
3. During investigation Muhammad Ilyas petitioner and his companions were found innocent by Muhammad Ismail S.I. Abdul Majid Inspector verged the investigation and agreed with S.I. Muhammad Ismail. One Imtiaz Ahmad made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. before Resident Magistrate, Daska on 9‑7‑1987 stating that the death of Faryad Hussain was caused by an accidental shot fired by Muhammad Ashfaq son of Muhammad Altaf. He also stated that Muhammad Ali Machhi had persuaded Muhammad Javid (complainant) to implicate the petitioner and others who were his opponents and to save his real cousin Muhammad Ashfaq mentioned above. The case was also investigated by Mr. Qamar Iqbal, D.S.P. Sialkot. He was examined by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot as C.W. 2 who gave a detailed account of the death of Faryad Hussain and the innocence of Muhammad 11yas petitioner He further stated that he got them discharged from the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate on 4‑8‑1987. Muhammad Ashfaq was arrested in case FIR No. 287/87 and challaned under section 304, P.P.C. He is stated to have been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot
4. After discharge of the accused Muhammad Javid filed a private complaint against them, and after recording preliminary evidence the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot summoned Muhammad Ilyas and others to face trial under sections, 302/34 and 458, P.P.C. and issued non‑bailable warrants of arrest against them. They applied to the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot for bail. Excepting Muhammad Ilyas petitioner the others were granted bail. The petitioner was declined bail because major role of firing of revolver shot resulting in the death of Faryad Hussain had been attributed to him.
5. It is contended that it is a case of two versions. One by police that Faryad Hussain had died due to accidental revolver shot fired by Muhammad Ashfaq and the other put forward by Muhammad Javid complainant that Faryad Hussain was murdered by Muhammad Ilyas petitioner and his companions as alleged by him in FIR No. 287/87 dated 1‑7‑1987.
6. Muhammad Ashfaq has been admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot. Excepting petitioner all the other co‑accused have also been admitted to bail. He was found innocent by the police and got discharged from the case. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not opposed the application and states that circumstances of the case entitle the petitioner to bail. In the circumstances narrated above the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Sialkot. S.G.D./M‑879/L
Bail granted.