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: StateHonorable Justice Khawaja Muhammad SharifImran Asmat Ch.,Malik Sultan Ahmad
2007 Y L R 483
2007 Y L R 483
[Lahore]
Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another-Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.6462-B of 2005, decided on 25th October, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149---Bail, grant of---Accused though was armed with .12 bore gun, but he did not cause any fire-arm injury to any injured prosecution witness---Accused only gave butt blows to injured prosecution witness---Co-accused along with others caused injuries to two prosecution witnesses---Case of both the accused was on similar footing as that of their co-accused who had already been allowed bail---Following the law of consistency, accused were allowed bail, accordingly.
Imran Asmat Ch. for Petitioners.
Malik Sultan Ahmad for the State along with Aman Ullah S.-I with record.
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMAMD SHARIF, J.---I had already dealt with Criminal Miscellaneous No.9570-B of 2005 vide order dated 26-1-2005, application of Muhammad Abbas was dismissed as he was armed with fire-arm and caused injury to the injured P.W. Gulfam co-accused was armed with Danda and only one injury was attributed to him so his application was accepted. Then Crl. Misc. No.4568-B of 2005 filed by Iftikhar etc. was dealt with by this Court and vide order dated 4-7-2005, their application was also dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the F.I.R. Aslam petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun and caused butt blows to Amjad Ali injured P.W. while Shaukat petitioner caused Danda blows to Mushtaq and Shahbaz P.Ws. that Aslam petitioner did not fire at any person although he was armed with .12 bore gun; that no specific injury is attributed to the petitioners; that no recovery was effected from the petitioner; that they did not even touch the deceased; that case of the petitioners is of further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that in the first investigation conducted by DSP the petitioners were found guilty but later on declared them innocent; that now the investigation has been transferred to Shaukat Ali, D.S.P. Investigation but he has not given his findings. He admits that no recovery was effected from the petitioners; that case of petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Aslam petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun but he did not cause any fire-arm injury to any injured P.W. He caused butt blows to Amjad Ali injured P.W. As far as Shaukat petitioner is concerned, he along with Waqas and Asif caused injuries to Mushtaq and Shahbaz injured P.Ws. Their case is on similar footing to that of their co-accused Gulfam who had already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 26-1-2005, therefore following the law of consistency this petition is accepted and the petitioners are allowed bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.
H.B.T./M-687/L Bail granted.