Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD BASHIR VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Before Ch. Iftikhar HussainAkhtar Hussain Bhatti,Azhar Ali Shah Bokhari,Ishfaq Ahmad Chaudhry
2004 M L D 993
2004 M L D 993
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.694‑B of 2004, decided on 11th March, 2004.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry‑‑‑Medico‑legal Report attached by accused with his bail application had shown that accused had sustained as many as nine injuries on his person and he was medically examined on the day of occurrence, but said injuries on the person of accused had not been explained by prosecution in F.I.R.‑‑‑Brother of accused had brought private complaint against complainant party in which Trial Court had summoned the complainant‑‑‑Case being that of two versions of the alleged incident, it was yet to be determined as to who was the aggressor and who was the aggressed and that would be seen at trial‑‑‑Scope of further inquiry into guilt of accused being there, his case was covered under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling him to the grant of bail‑‑‑Accused who was previous non‑convict was granted bail.
Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali and another 1972 SCMR 682; Bahadur and 9 others v. The State 1975 PCr.LJ 162; M. Shrafuddin v. The State‑1977 PCr.LJ 530; Muhammad Boota and 5 others v. The State 1978 PCr.LJ 300 and Moeeuddin v. The State and another 1999 PCr.LJ 810 ref.
Akhtar Hussain Bhatti for Petitioner.
Ishfaq Ahmad Chaudhry for the State.
Azhar Ali Shah Bokhari for the Complainant.
ORDER
Petitioner Muhammad Bashir through the instant petition has sought for post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.75 dated 18‑4‑2003 under section 302, P.P.C. registered with Police Station City Ranala Khurd, District Okara.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I. R. is that he on 18‑4‑2003 at about 11‑30 a.m., while armed with 8 MM rifle had fired at Munir Ahmad deceased hitting on his right thigh and the same went through and through. He intended to fire another shot at Nisar Ahmad, who held the rifle with his both hands and due to the barrel being hot his both hands had suffered boils.
The incident is alleged to have taken place on dispute over the passage.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that in fact the complainant party had assaulted upon him and injured him; that he has sustained as many as nine injuries and those have been suppressed in the F.I.R.; that there is cross‑version of the alleged incident in the form of private complaint against the complainant party brought by his brother Tahir Zahoor and in the same they on 9‑3‑2004 have been summoned by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara to face trial in the same; that when there are two versions of the alleged incident then the question that who had initiated aggression and who was aggressed upon is to be dealt with at the time of trial and in this regard reliance has been placed upon the cases of Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali and another (1972 SCMR 682), Bahadur and 9 others v. The State (1975 PCr.LJ 162 Lahore), M. Shrafuddin v. The State (1977 PCr.LJ 530 Lahore), Muhammad Boota and 5 others v. The State (1978 PCr.LJ 300 Lahore) and Moeenuddin v. The State and another (1999 PCr.LJ 810 Peshawar); and that he is behind the bars and a previous non‑convict.
4. Conversely the learned State Counsel has opposed the bail petition on the ground that he is sole accused in the case; that he while armed with 8 MM rifle has fired at the deceased hitting on his right thigh and the same went through and through and it ultimately caused his death; that in the police investigation he has been found to be the real culprit; that the cross‑version is fabricated one; and that he was beaten by the villagers when was running away after the incident.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. There is with the petition, the attested copy of his MLR. The same shows that he has sustained as many as nine injuries on his person. He according to the same was examined on 18‑4‑2003 i.e. the day of occurrence. His injuries have not been explained in the present F. I. R.
7. The fact also remains that there is cross‑version of the alleged incident. His brother Tahir Zahoor had brought private complaint against the complainant party. There is also with the petition the certified copy of the order dated 9‑3‑2004 recorded by Mr. Imtiaz Hussain learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara. He vide the same had summoned the accused in the private complaint brought by his brother. The position, thus, emerges that there are two versions of the alleged incident. It is, therefore, yet to be determined that who was aggressor or who aggressed upon. The same will be seen at the trial. There is, thus scope of further inquiry into his guilt. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. In this regard reference is made to the case of Mst. Shaflqan v. Hashim Ali and another (1972 SCMR 682), Bahadur and 9 others v. The State (1975 PCr.LJ 162 Lahore), M. Shrafuddin v. The State (1977 PCr.LJ 530 Lahore), Muhammad Boota and 5 others v. The State (1978 PCr.LJ 300 Lahore) and Moeenuddin v. The State and another (1999 PCr.LJ 810 Peshawar).
8. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non‑convict.
9. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) With one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑128/L Bail granted.