Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice S. Ali Hassan RizviSh. Usman Karim-ud-Din
2009 P Cr
2009 P Cr. L J 1146
[Lahore]
Before S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J
MUHAMMAD AKRAM----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.392/B of 2009, decided on 24th February, 2009.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.394---Bail, refusal of---Involvement of accused in the case was fully established during investigation---Recovery of pistol, wrist watch gold ornaments including pair of ear-rings spoke heavily against accused---Accused was arrested the same day---Injury on the body of the victim was a stamp of truth of the F.I.R.---Offence committed by accused was hideous in nature---Granting bail to accused would amount to trivialize and play down the gravity of the offence committed by him---Alleged statement of the complainant lady in favour of the co-accused would in no manner be helpful to accused---Co-accused had pressurized the complainant which amounted to tampering with the prosecution evidence---In non-compoundable cases, affidavit of any prosecution witness would not carry much weight at bail stage---Accused appeared to be a criminal with considerable clouts, he was not entitled to be released on bail.
Sh. Usman Karim-ud-Din for Petitioner.
Muhammad Awais Ahsan for the Complainant.
Asif Mehmood Cheema, D.P.-G. with Muhammad Arshad Inspector/S.H.O. for the State.
ORDER
S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R No.65 of 2007 under section 394, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 24-1-2007, the complainant lady was alone in her house and he along with his co-accused armed with dagger trespassed into the house, caused a dagger blow hitting her on the belly and looted the valuable articles by show of force.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for petitioner that one co-accused Mushtaq Ahmad having similar role has been enlarged on bail as the complainant lady had given a statement in his favour; that the recovery was planted and that no role was attributed to the petitioner.
4. Conversely, learned D.P.-G assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes these grounds.
5. The involvement of the petitioner was fully established during investigation. Recovery of pistol, wrist watch, gold ornaments including pair of earrings speaks heavily against him. He was arrested the same day. Injury on the belly of the victim, was a stamp of truth of the F.I.R. The petitioner's involvement having been established, he has been duly challaned. The offence committed by the petitioner is hideous in nature. Granting him bail, would amount to trivialize and play down the gravity of the offence committed by him. The alleged statement of the complainant lady in favour of the co-accused would in no manner be helpful to the petitioner. On the other hand, it was indicative of the fact that the co-accused had pressurized her which amounted to tampering with the prosecution evidence. In non-compoundable cases, affidavit of any P.W. would not carry much weight at bail stage. The reason is that the veracity of the shift made by the P.W. from her earlier statement before the police, would be tested in the course of trial when prosecution will have also an opportunity to cross-examine him/her. The petitioner appears to be a criminal with considerable clouts. He is not entitled to be released on bail. I, therefore, dismiss his petition.
H.B.T./M-287/L Bail refused.