Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAFAR IQBAL VS Respondent: THE STATE
2002 M L D 1606
2002 M L D 1606
[Lahore]
Before Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhary, J
ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5229‑B of 2001, decided on 9th October, 2001.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry‑‑‑Complainant had stated earlier in F.I.R. that accused armed with gun fired at deceased and caused him serious injury, but in supplementary statement he had stated that in fact co‑accused had fired at deceased who received injury and not the accused‑‑‑As to which one of the two statements of complainant was correct could be seen at time of trial‑‑‑Accused had been found innocent in investigation‑‑‑Case against accused fell under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. as involvement of accused had become doubtful‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail.
Ch. Arshad Mahmood for Petitioner.
Ashfaq Ahmad Chaudhry for the State.
ORDER
Through this application the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 14 of 2001 registered on 12‑1‑2001 under section 302/34, P.P.C. with Police Station, Kunjah, District Gujrat on the complaint of Shabbir Hussain which took place on the same night at 1‑30 a.m. According to the complainant they are four brothers. On the night of occurrence his elder brother Nazir went to the adjacent house to asleep with the children as their sister and brother‑in‑law had gone to Vaneeke Tarar. In the night at about 1‑30 a.m. the complainant alongwith his ‑father Ali Sher woke up on hearing noise; when came in the courtyard, saw in the light of the bulb Zafar Iqbal accused, who was armed with .12 bore gun, double barrel, was present alongwith two unknown persons armed with fire‑arms whom they can identify, they were quarreling with Muhammad Nazir in the room. The complainant stated that in their presence Zafar Iqbal accused while armed with gun fired at Muhammad Nazir deceased hitting him on the left side of his face who fell down and the accused ran away. The motive of the occurrence was alleged that about 2‑1/2 years ago‑the complainant and Zafar Iqbal had some dispute with each other on which Tajammal Abbas received the injuries and two days ago Muhammad Nazir was threatened by said Zafar Iqbal that they will teach a lesson to him. After the registration of the F.I.R. a supplementary statement, according to the police record, was recorded on 12‑1‑2001 in which he took a different stand and stated that actually Nadim Taimoor co‑accused had fired at the deceased who received the injuries and not from Zafar Iqbal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the F.I.R. and specific role was ascribed to him for causing the main injury on the head of the deceased but subsequently supplementary statement has been made in which Nadeem Taimoor co‑accused was attributed the same injury instead of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that which one of the statement is correct will be seen at the time of trial and for the time being petitioner's involvement in this case has become doubtful.
3. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is involved in case which falls within the prohibitory clause and has been specifically named in the F.I.R. and is not entitled to grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The complainant in his supplementary statement which is undated has stated that the accused who has fired at the deceased was subsequently found as Nadeem Taimoor. Zafar Iqbal accused had not fired at the deceased. The similar is the position of the other witnesses. In the investigation the petitioner has also been found as innocent. Which one statement of the complainant is correct can be seen at the time of the trial. For the time being case of the petitioner falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and involvement of the petitioner for the time being has become doubtful.
5. This application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./Z-113/L
Bail granted.