Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Asif Saeed Khan KhosaCh. Shahid Hussain
2011 Y L R 1350
[Lahore]
Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10891-B of 2009, decided on 10th September, 2009.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-A (iii) & 337-F(i)/34--- Shajjah-i-Khafifah to any person, Shajjah i-hashimah to any person and damiyah to any person---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---F.I.R. had been lodged with a delay of eleven days and no premeditation was found on the part of accused---Sudden flare up took place between the parties without any premeditation and on the basis of that flare up the situation had deteriorated at the spot and had degenerated into violence---Place of occurrence was quite close to house belonging to accused party, whereas the house of the complainant was nowhere near the place of occurrence, so much so that it had found no mention in the site plan at all---Medico-legal certificate issued in respect of complainant had shown that the complainant had been medically examined after about nineteen hours of receipt of his injuries, but the duration of injuries opined by the Doctor was about twelve hours, which had created some dent in the stated time of occurrence claimed by the complainant---Weapon allegedly used by accused was a brick which was an unconventional weapon---Such aspect of the matter had further confirmed lack of any premeditation on the part of accused party---Two accused persons, including the accused had also sustained injuries during the same incident and injuries were on their heads and chest, but were completely suppressed; and no mention of the same had been made in the F.I.R.---Accused's party had advanced a cross-version of the same incident, but same had, not been accepted by the Investigating Agency--Investigation of the case had already been finalized and challan had been submitted---Continued custody of accused in jail was not likely to serve a beneficial purpose---Concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment---Case against accused calling for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Ch. Shahid Hussain for Petitioner.
Mrs. Farzana Shahzad Khan, Deputy Prosecutor-General with Allah Ditta, S.-I. with record.
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Ashraf petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 132 registered at Police Station Shah Ghareeb, District Narowal on 6-7-2009 in respect of offences under sections 337-A(i)/337-A(iii)/337-F(i)/34, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a delay of eleven days. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that there was no premeditation on the part of the petitioner. It appears that there was a sudden flare up between the parties without any premeditation and on the basis of that flare up the situation had deteriorated at the spot and had degenerated into violence. A bare look at the site-plan of the place of occurrence shows that the place of occurrence was quite close to a house belonging to the accused party whereas the house of the complainant was nowhere near the place of occurrence so much so that it had found no mention in the site plan at all. The Medico-legal Certificate issued in respect of Abdul Sattar complainant shows that the complainant had been medically examined after about nineteen hours of receipt of his injuries but the duration of injuries opined by the doctor was about twelve hours which created some dent in the stated time of occurrence claimed by the complainant. The weapon allegedly used by the petitioner was a brick which was an unconventional weapon and this aspect of the matter further confirms lack of any premeditation on the part of the accused party. It is available on the record that two accused persons, including the present petitioner, had also sustained injuries during the same incident and those injuries were on their heads and chest. It is unfortunate that any information about the accused party also getting injured in the same incident was completely suppressed and no mention of the same had been made in the F.I.R. lodged in this case. The petitioners party had advanced a cross-version of the same incident and I have been informed that the said cross-version had been accepted by the investigating agency. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is trite that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-672/L Bail granted.