Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHER ALI VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Khalid MahmoodGhulam Mustafa Khan Swati,M. Nawaz Khan Swati
2013 Y L R 487
[Peshawar]
Before Khalid Mahmood, J
SHER ALI---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.535 of 2012, decided on 5th November, 2012.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/34---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the accused was that he caught hold of the deceased and facilitated his son/co-accused, who stabbed the deceased on his chest---Spur of the moment occurrence---No motive was advanced in the F.I.R.---Place of occurrence was situated at a distance of half furlong from the house of the accused---Prosecution witnesses were at variance regarding place of occurrence---Accused was aged 62 years, and his act of catching hold of the deceased and facilitating his son/co-accused for giving blow on the chest of the deceased required further inquiry---No blood was recovered from the place of occurrence, which transpired from the site plan and from the statement of the prosecution witnesses---Guilt of accused needed further inquiry, consequently he was released on bail.
Muhammad Akhtar v. State 1995 SCMR 310; Shaukat v. State 1994 SCMR 393 and Ali Shah v. State 2002 PCr.LJ 707 rel.
Ghulam Mustafa Khan Swati for Petitioner.
M. Nawaz Khan Swati, A.A.-G. for Respondent.
Dildar Ahmad Khan for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 13th January, 2012.
JUDGMENT
KHALID MAHMOOD, J.---Petitioner Sher Ali seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.231 dated 18-8-2012 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Police Station Garhi Habibullah as he has been declined such relief by the Courts below.
2. As per contents of F.I.R., the complainant charged the accused petitioner for catching hold of the deceased for facilitating the co-accused Gul Zareen, who stabbed the deceased in his chest.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that accused petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in the case with mala fide intention for catching hold of the deceased. It was argued that the occurrence took place suddenly and presence of accused petitioner, as shown by the complainant, is fabricated and house of petitioner is allegedly situated at a distance of half furlong from the place of occurrence. It was argued that investigation in the case is complete and petitioner is no more required by the local police for investigation purposes.
4. On the other hand learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition and contended that petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. with specific role and it was the accused petitioner, who facilitated the co-accused to stab the deceased on the chest. It was argued that the complainant, eye-witnesses and medical report supported the prosecution version.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The occurrence took place at the spur of moment and no motive has been advanced in the F.I.R. The house of accused petitioner is situated at a distance of half furlong from the place of occurrence and P.Ws. Muhammad Sadiq and Parvez are found at variance regarding place of occurrence. Accused petitioner has been assigned role of catching hold of deceased whereas co-accused Gul Zareen is charged for stabbing the chhurri blow on the chest of the deceased. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner is aged 62 years and catching hold for facilitating his son for giving blow that too on chest of the deceased requires further probe and enquiry. It was also pointed out by the defence counsel that no blood has been recovered from the alleged place of occurrence, which transpires from the site plan and got strengthened from the statement of said P.Ws. At bail stage deep appreciation of evidence is unwarranted as the same may prejudice the mind of the trial Court. However, wisdom can be drawn from the cases of Muhammad Akhtar v. State (1995 SCMR 310), Shaukat v. State (1994 SCMR 393) and Ali Shah v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 707). In the above noted cases co-accused charged for catching hold of injured were allowed bail. Prima facie guilt of petitioner needs further inquiry and pending such inquiry he deserves to be released on bail.
7. Consequently, this bail petition is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rs.Five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. The observations given by this Court are tentative in nature, trial Court should not be influenced by the same.
MWA/392/P Bail granted.