Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZULFIQAR VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Dr. Qamar-ud-Din BohraJai Jai Veshno Mange Ram
2008 Y L R 2848
2008 Y L R 2848
[Karachi]
Before Dr. Qamar-ud-Din Bohra, J
ZULFIQAR---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. S-376 of 2008, decided on 8th August, 2008.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 337-H(ii), 201, 148 & 149---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)---Bail, grant of---Common allegation of firing was against 41 persons in the F.I.R. and the police challaned 38 persons and out of those one was admitted to bail by the Trial Court and another one was admitted to bail by the High Court and others were still absconders---After arrest of accused no weapon had been recovered from accused nor he was put to identification---Certificate already produced had shown that on the alleged date of incident accused was not in the city and was posted in Pak Army---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram for Applicant.
Naimatullah Bhurgri for the State.
ORDER
DR. QAMAR-UD-DIN BOHRA, J.----In the instant case, allegation is against 41 persons that they made firing on the complainant party which resulted in killing of six persons. The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Lakhi Ghulam Shah on 18-6-2002 against 41 persons. The present applicant has been shown in the challan as absconder along with 38 persons. On 16-1-2007 he was arrested by police from his house. Then he moved bail application before the trial Court which was rejected on 2-10-2007. Thereafter, he preferred the bail application before this Court bearing No.569 of 2007 which was also rejected with the observation that the applicant/accused can repeat bail before the trial Court by taking plea of alibi which was not taken in earlier bail application. Then applicant/accused repeated bail application before the trial Court with the ground that his case is identical to the case of co-accused Mumtaz who has already been admitted on bail by the trial Court and moreover on the date of incident he was not present in the City as he was serving in Pak Army and was posted at Lahore. In support of his contention he also produced a letter which was sent for confirmation by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the Lieutenant Colonel that applicant was posted at STR of Basic Try Bn.2 Engr Centre Risalpur Cantt. He was not on leave from 18-6-2002 to 10-10-2002. Despite that the trial Court did not believe the plea of alibi and rejected the bail application vide order, dated 27-6-2008.
Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, learned State counsel did not oppose for the bail and he conceded.
Admittedly, there is common allegation of firing against 41 persons in the F.I.R. and the police challaned 38 persons out of which co-accused Mumtaz admitted on bail by the trial Court and Peer Dino admitted on bail by this Court whereas other accused are still absconders. After arrest of the applicant/accused no weapon has been recovered from him nor he was put to identification. The certificate, produced already shows that on the alleged date of incident applicant was not in the city and was posted in Pak Army at Risalpur.
In light of the above, applicant/accused is admitted on bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./Z-25/K Bail granted.