Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ASHIQ HUSSAIN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Khawaja Muhammad SharifSyed Afzal Haider Naqvi,Ijaz Ahmed Bajwa
2007 Y L R 1911
2007 Y L R 1911
[Lahore]
Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
ASHIQ HUSSAIN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5634-B of 2006, decided on 20th July, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 109---Bail before arrest, grant of---Further inquiry---Name of accused though was mentioned in F.I.R., but neither date, time or place of abetment had been mentioned in F.I.R. nor names of witnesses of alleged abetment were mentioned in it---Statements of witnesses were alleged to have been recorded by the police after 12 days of occurrence---Accused, who was accused of abetment only, was not present at the spot---Nothing had to be recovered from accused---No useful purpose would be served by sending accused behind the bar, when his case was of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) to S.497, Cr.P.C.---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed.
1997 SCMR 850; 1997 PLR 390 and 2002 SCMR 1299 rel.
Syed Afzal Haider Naqvi for Petitioner.
Ijaz Ahmed Bajwa for the State with Muhammad Hussain S.-I with record.
Anwar-ul-Haq Pannun for the Complainant.
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail before arrest petition, contends that the petitioner is accused of abetment only, he has falsely been implicated, was not present at the spot, nothing has to be recovered from him, no useful purpose shall be served by sending him behind the bars and it is a fit case for bail before arrest. He has placed reliance on 1997 SCMR 850, 1997 PLR 390 and 2002 SCMR 1299.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by complainant's learned counsel submits that four co-accused of the petitioner, who had fired at the deceased, are still at large, and are Proclaimed Offenders, those co-accused are also involved in other murder cases, conduct of the petitioner is not above-board because he was allowed interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the date of hearing he did not appear, his counsel withdrew the bail petition, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in this case, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., no mala fide or ulterior motive is alleged against the complainant and the petitioner is not entitled to the pre-arrest bail.
3. Heard. As far as role of the petitioner is concerned, it is correct that his name is mentioned in the F.I.R. but neither date, time or place of abetment has been mentioned in the F.I.R. nor names of the witnesses of abetment were mentioned in it. Moreso, the occurrence in question had taken place on 4th June, 2006 while the statements of the witnesses of abetment were recorded by the police after 12 days of the occurrence. He was not present at the spot, is accused of abetment only, nothing has to be recovered from him and no useful purpose shall be served from by sending him behind the bars. His case is fully covered by subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. and the case to his extent is one of further inquiry. In the aforereferred circumstances, the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order of this Court dated 13-7-2006 is hereby confirmed.
H.B.T./A-38/L Bail confirmed.