Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ALI VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L. J 2159
[Lahore]
Before Manzoor Hussain Sial, J
MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3535/13 of 1987, decided on 20th January, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/109‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Neither name of accused was mentioned in F.I.R. nor there was any reference in F.I.R. about prosecution witnesses testifying allegations of accused's abetment in commission of offence‑‑Trial of case delayed for a period of more than 2 years‑‑Accused neither a previous convict nor trial of case had been delayed at his instance or on his behalf‑‑No complaint about accused about his misconduct from jail authorities since his imprisonment‑‑Accused was allowed to be released on bail in circumstances.
Kh. Tariq Masood for Petitioner.
Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State.
ORDER
Muhammad Ali petitioner stands involved in a case under section 302/109, P.P.C. registered against him and his co‑accused on 19‑5‑1985 at Police Station City Rahimyar Khan. He has applied for his release on bail when his previous application had been dismissed by me do 26‑10‑1985.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he accompanied Nisar Ahmad accused and abetted him to fire pistol shot on Ijaz Anwar resulting in latter's death. The factum of his abetting Nisar Ahmad accused was witnessed by Arshad and Shah Nawaz P.Ws.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner's name is net mentioned in the F.I.R, and he had been falsely implicated in the case. It is also submitted that even the names of Arshad and Shah Nawaz P.Ws. are not mentioned in the F.I.R. He was arrested on 31‑5‑1985 and the trial of the case has not yet started. The allegation that he was involved in 27 cases and was a previous convict is wrong. He was involved in several false cases but eventually acquitted. As regards his conduct in jail learned counsel submitted that no complaint was received since June, 1987 from the Central Jail, Multan where he is detained since then.
4. Learned counsel representing the State on instructions from Allah Bakhgh A.S.I. Police Station City Rahimyar Khan has confirmed from the record that he is not a previous convict and the cases in which he had been involved resulted in his acquittal except the instant case and another case under section 13 of Ordinance XX of 1965 which are still pending decision. He has also not been able to show that the trial of the instant case had been delayed for over two years due to his conduct specially because the trial has not even commenced so far.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file. The petitioner was arrested and is detained in jail since 31‑5‑1985. As per report submitted by the Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, the trial of the case has not so far commenced, for reasons mentioned therein. The petitioner is not a previous convict nor trial of the case had been delayed at his instance or on his behalf. There is no complaint about his misconduct from the jail authorities after June 1987. His name does not find mention in the F.I.R. nor there is any reference about Muhammad Arshad and Shah Nawaz P.Ws. in the F.I.R. testifying the factum of his abetment to Nisar Ahmad co‑accused for the commission of the offence.
6: For all the reasons given above sand in the circumstances of the instant case, he is allowed to be released on bail provided, he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.40,000 Rupees forty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./ M.I.C., Rahimyar Khan.
H.B.T./M‑549/L Bail granted.