Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD BILAL VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Abdul Sami KhanRana Sarfraz Ahmad
2018 P Cr. L J 952 [Lahore] Before Abdul Sami Khan, J MUHAMMAD BILAL---Petitioner Versus The STATE and another---Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous No. 123420-B of 2017, decided on 19th February, 2018. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2) & 347---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F(iii) & 34---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, hurt and common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Power of Trial Court to award maximum punishment---Scope---Complainant contended that accused fired two shots which landed on thigh of his brother-Record revealed that though the accused was nominated in FIR, but the same was lodged with the delay of 23 days without any explanation by the complainant which showed that FIR had been lodged after due deliberation and consultation---Injuries on the person of injured were declared by the doctor as "jurrah ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah" under S. 337-F(iii), P.P.C. which carried maximum punishment up to three years as Ta'zir---Said injuries being on thigh, question of attracting S. 324, P.P.C. would be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence---Offence with which the accused was charged was triable by Section-30 Magistrate who was competent to pass sentence upto seven years only and whether it would be a fit case to be sent to the Court of Sessions under S. 347, Cr.P.C. or not for enhancement of sentence would be determined by Trial Court after recording evidence---Where there were two inferences, one favouring the accused would be drawn---Case called for further inquiry into guilt of accused as envisaged under S. 497(2) of Cr.P.C.---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Rana Sarfraz Ahmad for Petitioner. Muhammad Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor-General and Gulzar, ASI with record for the State. Ch. Hakoomat Ali for the Complainant. ORDER ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Bilal has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.495/2017 dated 05.06.2017 under sections 324, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Mansoorabad District Faisalabad. 2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of 23 days in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation. As per FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he fired two shots with his pistol which landed on left and right thigh of injured Tafazal Razzaq, brother of the complainant which injuries were declared by the Doctor as "Jurrah ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah" under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. which carry maximum punishment up to three years as Ta'zir As the injuries on the person of injured Tafazal Razzaq are on his thigh, therefore, the attraction of section 324, P.P.C. shall be determined by the learned trial court after recoding of evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars since 04.10.2017. He is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Offence with which the petitioner is charged is triable by Magistrate Section-30 who is competent to pass sentence for seven years only and whether it is a fit case to be sent to the Court of Session under section 347, Cr.P.C. or not for enhance imprisonment shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. It is also settled law that when there are two inferences, the one in favour of accused shall be drawn. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to an accused, who otherwise, becomes entitled for concession of bail on the merits of the case. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. 3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. MQ/M-41/L Bail granted.