Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAHID SHAH VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, Riaz Kayani Title: ZAHID SHAH vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No,4454/B of 2000 Date of Judgment:2000-08-29 Reported As: 2001 P Cr. L J 134 Result: Bail refused
Judgment ORDER ' Zahid Shah son of Inayat Ali Shah seeks bail in F.I.R. No,265 of 1999 registered with Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Ishfaq Ali. 2. Allegation voiced in the F.I.R. Authored by Abbas Haider is that he alongwith others including his brother Ishfaq Ali were coming from the Dera of Muhammad Ramzan and going towards their house, when they reached near the Dera of Shaukat Ali, all of a sudden assailants including the petitioner armed with .12 bore gun emerged and started raising Lalkaras for siding with Munir Hussain Shah. The attack was commenced by Shaukat Ali who fired with his gun which hit the deceased Ishfaq on his thigh followed by a fire at the hands of the petitioner which struck the deceased on back of left hand. Last fire was made by Ibad Ali Shah which missed the complainant party. Motive for the occurrence is stated to be intent of the complainant party to forcibly occupy the house of Munir Hussain, cousin of the complainant. 3. Post-arrest hail was declined by Additional Sessions Judge. Depalpur on 11-1-2000. 4. Learned counsel before us has contended that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and that he was declared innocent in the investigation. It is further stated that injury being on the hand was not the cause of death, therefore, discretion should be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Conversely, learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail. 5. The Additional Sessions Judge while declining bail specifically observed that during the investigation, presence of the petitioner is established. Non-recovery of weapon would be of no help in the presence of ocular testimony which is in line with the medical evidence. Specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. No ground for interference is made out as offence is punishable with death. Resultantly the application is dismissed.