Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NASIR VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainCh. Faqir Muhammad,THE STATE,Pervaiz Akhtar Gujjar
2003 P Cr
2003 P Cr. L J 1587
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
MUHAMMAD NASIR---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.925/B of 2003, decided on 20th May, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Bail grant of-- Further inquiry---Accused, who was not named in the F.I.R., was alleged to have made extra-judicial confession---Accused was merely present with his co-accused who had fired at the deceased and accused had committed no overt act qua the deceased---Question of vicarious liability of accused for murder of deceased was to be gone into at the time of trial---Case of accused, in circumstances, was covered under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt---Accused had been stated to be a previous non-convict---Accused was entitled to bail, in circumstances.
Ch. Faqir Muhammad for Petitioner.
Pervaiz Akhtar Gujjar for the State.
ORDER
Muhammad Nasir, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.437 dated 6-11-2002 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that he and his co-accused Muhammad Akram in furtherance of their common intention have committed the Qatl-e-Amd of deceased Muhammad Amjad.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is not named in the F.I.R.; that there is no direct evidence of the murder of the deceased against them; that the only role assigned to him in the statement of Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Zafar recorded on 9-11-2002 by the police is that he was merely present with his co-accused Muhammad Akram but has committed no overt act qua the deceased; that motive is also not directly relateable to him; that no recovery of incriminating material was effected from him and in such circumstances, the question that if he can be held liable for the alleged offence needs serious consideration and so his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars and is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he alongwith his co-accused had committed the Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Amjad deceased.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with help of available record.
6. He is not named in the F.I.R. Allegeldy, he had made extra- judicial confession before Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Zafar on 8-11-2002. According to their statements, he merely was present with his co-accused Muhammad Akram, who had fired at the deceased. So, according to their statement, he did not commit at any overt act qua the deceased. Thus, the question of his vicarious liability for his murder is to be gone into at the time of trial. His case, thus is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars and stated to be a previous non-convict.
7. In these circumstance, I find him entitled to bail. The petition therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1962/L Bail granted.