Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ARSHAD
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 533
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Riaz Ahmad, J
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN---Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 2 others---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2211/C.B. of 1992, decided on 21st October, 1992.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Cancellation of bail---No material was available with the Investigating Agency either against accused or for issuance of process in the complaint---Case thus fell within the purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C---Bail allowed to accused by Trial Court was not cancelled in circumstances.
Muhammad Taqi Khan for Petitioner.
M. Saleem Shad for the State.
Asif Chughtai for the Complainant.
ORDER
For the murder of Muhammad Munir, an F.I.R. was lodged in which not only the respondents but Muhammad Afzal was also named. The matter was investigated into on three occasions by various investigating agencies and the consensus was that only Muhammad Afzal was involved in this case while no evidence was available against respondents Muhammad Arshad and Khalid Mehmood and therefore, their names were placed in Column No.2.
Aggrieved by the fate of the investigation, the complainant fled a private complaint against the respondents and the process was issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. On the issuance of the process, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, considering it a case of further enquiry and also by holding that the respondents were only required to execute bonds for appearance admitted them to bail.
This application seeking cancellation of bail was moved by the complainant. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents at length. In my view, the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in granting the bail to the respondents is not open to exception. Obviously, it has been held that no material was available against them with the investigating agency on the one hand and for issuance of process in the complaint on the other hand the case falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.
It is clarified that this order shall not affect the mind of the trial Court which shall proceed independently on the basis of the evidence adduced before it.
With these observations, this petition stands dismissed.
N.H.Q./M-817/L Petition dismissed.