Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PIRAN DITTA VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainGhulam Murtaza Malik,Haji Javaid Iqbal
2003 M L D 1520
2003 M L D 1520
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
PIRAN DITTA---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.549-B of 2003, decided on 15th April, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
---S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Bail, grant of-- Further inquiry---Allegation against accused was that he had exhorted his brother/co-accused to fire at deceased who fired accordingly and consequently deceased died at the spot---Except raising Lalkara, no other role had been ascribed to the accused---Question of accused's sharing common intention with his co-accused in the murder of deceased was to be gone into at time of trial---Case of accused, in circumstances, was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. requiring, further inquiry into his guilt---Accused was behind the bars and was stated to be previous non-convict---Accused was entitled to bail in circumstances.
Ghulam Murtaza Malik for Petitioner.
Haji Javaid Iqbal for the State.
ORDER
Piran Ditta, the petitioner has sought .for post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No.304, dated 28-7-2002 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Saddar, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 28-7-2002 at about 9-00 p.m. Allah Ditta armed with .12 bore gun and Piran Ditta (petitioner) in furtherance of their common intention had committed the Qatl-e-Amd of Azeema Mai deceased. Piran Ditta had exhorted his brother Allah Ditta to fire at Mst. Azeema Mai. Allah Ditta then made straight fire on her hitting on her front side of the neck and mouth, who fell down and succumbed to her injuries at the spot.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that the co-accused Allah Ditta had suspicion of illicit relations of her deceased wife Mst. Azeema Mai with one Allah Wasaya. On that account they had committed her Qatl-i-Amd.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in due to enmity; that there is six hours delay in lodging the F.I.R. that he has not caused any injury to the deceased; that the only role attributed to him is of raising Lalkara; that the question of his showing common intention in the murder of the deceased is to be determined by the trial; and that he is behind the bars and previous non convict.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. and that he has been assigned specific role in the commission of crime.
6. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. Allegedly he has exhorted his brother Allah Ditta to fire at the deceased and thereafter, the latter had fired at her and consequently she had died at the spot. No other role qua the deceased has been ascribed to him.
8. Hence, the question of his sharing common intention with his co-accused in the murder of deceased is to be gone into at the time of trial. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
9. In these circumstances, he is entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh/Trial Court.
H.B.T./P-136/L Bail granted.