Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RIAZ VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Rustam Ali MalikZafar Iqbal Chohan,Najum-ul-Hassan Gill
2004 M L D 612
2004 M L D 612
[Lahore]
Before Rustam Ali Malik, J
MUHAMMAD RIAZ and another---Petitioners
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.7962-B of 2002, decided on 13th December, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/364/34---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Complainant who was real brother of deceased, during hearing of bail application had filed an affidavit before Trial Court to the effect that he had not nominated accused in the F.I.R. and that his thumb-impression had been obtained by police on a blank paper---Complainant had also deposed in the said affidavit that he was satisfied that accused had not committed the offence---Two witnesses of extra judicial confession had also filed affidavits before Trial Court to the effect that none of accused persons had made any confession in their presence---Two witnesses who were witnesses of last seen had not filed affidavit---Furnishing of affidavits by complainant and two witnesses of extra judicial confession had clearly made case of further inquiry---No direct evidence was available with prosecution connecting the accused with murder of deceased---Accused were entitled to bail, in circumstances.
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioners.
Najum-ul-Hassan Gill for the State
Date of hearing: 13th December, 2002.
ORDER
The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.234 of 2002 registered on 22-9-2002 in Police Station Qadirpur, District Jhang under sections 302134/364, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Lai Khan regarding the abduction of his sister Mst. Sardaran. In the F.I.R. it was stated by the complainant .that he had strong suspicion that on account of some grievance Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Riaz had committed the murder of his sister.
3. Muhammad Ramzan petitioner is stated to be the son of the deceased while Muhammad Raiz accused is stated to be the younger brother of the husband of the deceased and who had allegedly taken along the deceased.
4. In the F . R. a mention was also made of the motive for the occurrence.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused
6. It appears that on 20-11-2002, during the hearing of the bail application, Lai Khan complainant had filed an affidavit before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that he had not nominated the accused in the F.I.R. and that his thumb-impression had been obtained by the police on a blank paper. He had also deposed in the affidavit that he was satisfied that the accused had not committed the offence. Lal Khan aforesaid who is the complainant in this case is the' real brother of the deceased. On the same day Ghulam Shabbir and Ali Muhammad who are the witnesses of extra-judicial confession also filed affidavit before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that none of the accused had made any confession in their presence. It seems that Mukhtar Ahmad and Sher Muhammad were the witnesses of last seen who have not yet filed affidavits in favour of the petitioners. Any A how the furnishing of affidavits by the complainant and two witnesses of extra-judicial confession clearly make it a case of further inquiry. Admittedly there is no direct evidence in this case available with the prosecution concerning the murder of the deceased by the accused/petitioners. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, the bail application is accepted and the interim bail earlier granted to the petitioners on 3-12-2002 is confirmed, subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each, with one surety each it, the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within seven days.
H.B.T./M-375/K Bail confirmed.