Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TAHIR VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Ijaz Ahmad ChaudhryMuhammad Tanveer Ch.
2010 Y L R 1903
2010 Y L R 1903
[Lahore]
Before Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J
TAHIR---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.10705-B of 2009, decided on 8th September, 2009.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Qatl-e-amd---Bail, grant of---Contents of F.I.R. showed that firing had been made in the marriage ceremony---Possibility of commission of accidental incident could not be ruled out---No previous enmity existed between the parties---Rappat was got entered by the brother of the deceased in the daily Roznamcha that the accident had taken place accidentally---F.I.R. had been got registered with a delay of almost one month without any plausible justification, which had prima facie supported the contention of counsel for accused that incident had taken place by chance due to firing made by accused in marriage ceremony---Accused was behind the bars for the last 2-1/2 years and order sheet had shown that witnesses were present on some of the dates, but counsel for the complainant sought numerous adjournments--- When the conclusion of trial was not in sight in near future due to fault of complainant, accused could not be kept behind the bars for indefinite period--Accused was admitted to bail, in circum stances.
Muhammad Tanveer Ch. for Petitioner.
Complainant in person.
Mian Ismat Ullah, D.P.G.
Manzoor Ahmad A.S-I with record.
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. petitioner has applied for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 85 dated 16-2-2007 registered under sections 302/34 P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Mandi Bahauddin, on the complaint of Nazir Ahmad son of Meer Muhammad complainant.
2. Precisely the facts of the case as per prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. are that due to the previous grudge the petitioner committed the murder of the son of the complainant by firing.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the occurrence took place due to firing made by the petitioner in the marriage ceremony and there was no reason for the petitioner to commit the murder of deceased and case does not fall within the purview of Qatle-e-Amd; that there was no intention, mens rea and ill will of the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased; that on the day of incident brother of the deceased namely Ghulam Farid got recorded Rapat in daily Roznamcha to the effect that the incident had taken place accidentally due to firing made by the petitioner at the marriage ceremony; that at the most the offence falls within purview of section 319 P.P.C. which is bailable; that section 34 P.P.C. has been deleted during the investigation; that motive has not been established during the investigation; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 2 1/2 years, who may be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is a single accused named in the F.I.R. with specific role of making firing at the deceased; that the medical evidence supported the version of the complainant; that the trial has commenced and statements of two witnesses have been recorded and now is fixed for 11-9-2009 for recording evidence; that recovery of .30-bore pistol has been effected from the petitioner; and that the bail petition may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The perusal of contents of F.I.R. itself shows that the firing was made in the marriage ceremony and possibility of commission of accidental incident cannot be ruled out. There was no previous enmity between the parties and a Rappat was got entered by the brother of deceased in the daily Roznamcha that the incident had taken place accidentally. Furthermore the occurrence took place on 15-1-2007 and F.I.R. has been got registered on 16-2-2007 with the delay of almost one month regarding which no plausible justification has been brought up on the record by the prosecution and the same prima facie supports the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that incident had taken place by chance due to firing made by the petitioner in marriage ceremony. Even otherwise the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 2 1/2 years and order sheet has been produced which shows that witnesses were present on some of the dates, but learned counsel for the complainant sought adjournment and numerous adjournments had been granted on request of complainant. In the present scenario when the conclusion of trial is not in sight in near future due to fault of complainant, petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period. Hence, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1, 00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Judge.
H.B.T./T-15/L Bail granted.