Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS Respondent: STATE
1995 M L D 234
1995 M L D 234
[Lahore]
Before Ausaf Ali Khan, J
MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3251/B of 1994, decided on 15th August, 1994.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑Injury attributed to accused was simple in nature and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused had been seen in the moonlit night which was weak source of identification‑‑‑‑Co‑accused hamng the motive for the occurrence was on bail‑‑‑Investigation was complete and accused was not required for such purpose‑‑‑Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.
Akhtar Masood Khan for Petitioner.
Syed Fazal Hussain Jaffry for the State.
ORDER
The allegation against the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, is that he was seen by the complainant in the moonlit night, firing at Nazar Muhammad (P.W.) hitting his thighs.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed bail on the following premises: ‑‑
(1) The firearm injury on thigh of the P.W. was declared simple by the Doctor after X‑Ray examination. The occurrence therefore, falling under section 337‑F(ii), P.P.C. entailed maximum punishment of three years.
(2) It is a night occurrence and the petitioner is alleged to have been seen in moonlit night which is a weak source of identification's
(3) The accused to whom the motive is attributed, though not causing any injury, is on bail.
(4) The investigation is complete and the presence of the petitioner with Investigating Agency is not required.
(5) The petitioner has clean antecedents.
3. The said contentions have lot of substances. Possibility is not ruled out that the petitioner may be ultimately punished, even if the case is proved, for the actual injury he has caused under section 337‑F(ii), P.P.C. which is punishable up to three years. The offence does not, therefore, fall within prohibitory clause. In circumstance of the case the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of I the Assistant Commissioner/Ilaqa Magistrate concerned.
N.H.Q./M‑1748/L Bail allowed.