Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RASHEED VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Sh. Javaid SarfrazAltaf Ibrahim Qureshi,Muhammad Sarwar Awan for the State along with Asghar
2006 Y L R 2456
2006 Y L R 2456
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Javaid Sarfraz, J
RASHEED---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Crl. Miscellaneous No.1054-B of 2005, decided on 3rd May, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(1), 337-F(iv), 337-L(ii), 337-H(ii), 148 & 149---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Out of eleven persons who were nominated as accused, role of three persons, including accused was identical and out of said three persons, two had already been granted bail; it would be in the interest of justice that third accused was also allowed hail---Alleged offence not falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C., grant of bail was a rule and refusal was an exception---Accused was no more required by the police for further investigation---Case of accused needing further inquiry, he was allowed bail.
PLD 1995 SC 34 ref.
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Muhammad Sarwar Awan for the State along with Asghar, A.S.-I.
ORDER
SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---The petitioner Rasheed son of Abdul Haq seeks post-arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.33 of 2003 dated 16-2-2003 offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(iv), 337-L(ii), 337-H(ii) 148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Sadar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2. According to the allegations as per F.I.R. are that on 14-2-2003, Salamat, Majeed, Rasheed, Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif who were armed with hatchet, Muhammad Hanif armed with pistol .30 bore, Muhammad Afzal armed with iron rod, Rafaqat, Shehbaz alias Naaja and Muhammad Riaz armed with Sotas along with three unknown persons who were empty handed caused injuries to Munir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Shabir Ahmad and Mukhtiar and others.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that role of the petitioner is identical to that of Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif and both of them were allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni on 12-7-2003. Therefore, according to the Rule of Consistency, the petitioner also deserves to the grant of bail. Further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is of general nature and no specific injury was attributed to them. It is submitted that none of the offences fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 (2), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Out of 11 persons who were nominated as accused, role of three persons i.e. petitioner. Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif are identical out of whom, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif, co-accused have already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni on 12-7-2003 therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is also allowed bail. As the offences so charged do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause and in such like cases as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34 is respectfully relied upon. The petitioner was arrested on 3-12-2004 and is no more required by the police for further investigation. The case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and need further enquiry.
5. Under these circumstances, this application is allowed and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50, 000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./R-27/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.