Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Respondent: THE STATE
2000 Y L R 1239
2000 Y L R 1239
[Lahore]
Before Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3454‑B of 1999, decided on 6th July, 1999.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Role of accused was not identical to that of co‑accused who had been granted bail by High Court‑‑‑Accused had fired twice upon the prosecution witnesses with his gun and he was the principal accused in the case‑‑‑Trial of accused was being delayed due to the non‑appearance of aforesaid co‑accused in the Court who was on bail‑‑‑Bail was not allowed to accused in circumstances.
Ch. Gulzar Ali Chohan for Petitioner.
Saleem Akram Chaudhry for the Complainant.
Muhammad Rafique for the State.
ORDER
A case under section 324/34, P.P.C. is registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station City Raiwind, Lahore vide F.I.R. No. 265 of 1998, dated 15‑8‑1998 for an occurrence which took place on 14‑8‑1998 in which the present petitioner while armed with double barrel .12 bore gun had made fires upon the P.Ws. named Intizar and Zulfiqar by causing them injuries on their vital parts of the body. Intizar Ali injured P.W. overpowered Muhammad Ashraf and in the process, the later threw his. gun towards Muhammad Saleem who after picking it up fired at Intizar P.W. causing him injury on his right arm. The accused after completing the occurrence ran away.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that the petitioner is in the judicial lock‑up for the last about 10 months but no progress has been made in the trial su far; that the bail to the co- accused namely Muhammad Saleem with a similar role was granted by this Court vide order, dated 27‑1‑1999 and as such, the petitioner was also entitled to bail as his case was not distinguishable; and lastly, the petitioner was allegedly involved in the case falsely.
3. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail on the ground that there was no analogy between the part played by Muhammad Saleem and the present petitioner. The aforesaid Muhammad Saleem was admittedly empty handed, whereas, the present petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun and had caused injuries to the P.Ws. namely Intizar and Zulfiqar. During the transaction, he had allegedly thrown his gun towards Muhammad Saleem, who after picking up the same fired at Intizar P.W. and thereafter, both of them made their escape good. As such, it is contended that the petitioner was the principal accused in the case and that due to the delaying tactics by Saleem i.e. accused on bail, the trial is not making any headway.
4. I have considered the foregoing contentions and find that Muhammad Ashraf i.e. petitioner was a principal accused and as such, he had a distinguishable role than his co‑accused Muhammad Saleem which has been clearly defined and discussed in my order, dated 27‑1‑1999, whereby, the aforesaid Muhammad Saleem was admitted to bail on that ground. As such, the petitioner has no case for bail on the ground that his role was identical to this co‑accused namely Muhammad Saleem. The petitioner is .the principal. accused as having fired twice upon the P.Ws. with his gun. He has, therefore, no case for bail. The trial of the accused is being delayed due to the non‑appearance of the co -accused of the petitioner namely Saleem who has been admitted to bail by this Court.
5. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has no case for bail. The petition is accordingly dismissed with the direction that the trial Court shall conclude the trial and dispose of the case within two months from the receipt of this order by the aforesaid Court.
N.H.Q./M‑1152/L
Bail refused.