Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Respondent: STATE
1997 M L D 3257
1997 M L D 3257
[Lahore]
Before Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
MUHAMMAD ASLAM ‑Petitioner
versus
STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No 1403‑B of 1996, decided on 27th January, 1997
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Case against accused was that he killed his wife as well as her paramour on seeing them in a compromising position‑‑‑During trial five of the prosecution witnesses were examined, but each of them had resiled from 'his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. and was subjected to cross‑examination‑‑‑Even father of deceased had disowned occurrence and had stated that he knew nothing about that‑‑‑In view of resiling statements of prosecution witnesses, prosecution had left with no evidence connecting accused with the commission of alleged crime‑‑‑Even otherwise, as claimed in F. t. R. itself, it seemed to be a case of grave and sudden provocation where accused on finding his wife in a compromising position with her paramour, had killed both of them‑‑‑Accused, thus was entitled to bail in circumstances.
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Mirza Fayyazuddin Ahmad for the State
ORDER
Muhammad Aslam, petitioner, is facing prosecution on a charge under section 302, P.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, Camp at Burewala. The allegation against him, as reflected in F.I.R. No.383 of 1995, dated 7‑11‑1995, registered at Police Station City Burewala, District Vehari, is that he killed his wife as well as her paramour Shabir Ahmad on seeing them, in a compromising position on the same bed. During the trial five of the prosecution witnesses have been examined and each of them has resiled from his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. and has been subjected to cross -examination. Even the complainant, father of the deceased Jamila, has disowned the occurrence and has stated that he knows nothing about it.
2. The learned trial Court has rejected the bail on the ground that Nazir Ahmad, father of Shabbir deceased has filed application under section 540. Cr.P.C. for summoning some witnesses and, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the case against the petitioner is that of no evidence. The reasons stated by the Court does not seem to be valid. On the present record and keeping in view the resiling statements, the prosecution is left with no evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of crime. Even otherwise, as claimed in the F.I.R. itself, it seems to be a case of grave and sudden provocation where the petitioner on finding his wife in a compromising position with her paramour, killed both of them.
3. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow this application and direct that on petitioner's furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail in this case.
H.B.T./M‑394/L Bail granted