Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FAYYAZ AHMAD VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 1450
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
FAYYAZ AHMAD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.229-B of 1994, decided on 9thFebruary, 1994.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149---Bail, grant of-- Accused was alleged to have given a blow with the butt of his gun to the deceased after he had fallen down---Two co-accused who had been ascribed the same role had been allowed bail and the rule of consistency demanded the same concession for the accused---Accused, even otherwise, was not required for investigation and the co-accused already on bail were not alleged to have misused their concession of bail---Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.
Rana Ijaz Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Malik Rehmat Awan for the State.
Date of hearing: 9th February, 1994.
ORDER
Fayyaz Ahmad, petitioner, seeks bail in a case registered against him and others with Police Station Alipur Chatha, District Gujranwala vide F.I.R., dated 12-5-1992, for an offence under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused on 12-5-1992 at about 5 p.m. came to the lands of the first informant and he alongwith his co-accused committed the murder of Fayyaz Ahmad, first informant's brother, and injuries to the witnesses.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the accused, except for the petitioner and Arif, have since been released on bail: contends that according to the allegation the petitioner was armed with a gun, yet he did not fire at the deceased, instead he used the Butt of his gun. Asserts that the petitioner is in custody since 24-5-1992 and the trial has not even commenced as yet. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. The role ascribed to the petitioner is that he gave a blow with the butt of his gun to the deceased when he had fallen down. It was followed by the co-accused of the petitioner. Strangely enough, the other two co-accused of the petitioner, who were ascribed the same role, have been allowed bail. The rule of consistency demands that the petitioner should also be allowed the same concession. Even otherwise, I have noticed that the petitioner is neither required for purposes of investigation nor there is any allegation that the co-accused, who have been released on bail, have misused the concession of bail. In these circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail, provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.
N.H.Q./F-132/L Bail allowed.