Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Nawaz BhattiJavaid Ahmad Khan,Rana Khalid Mehmood
2005 P Cr
2005 P Cr. L J 1166
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J
MUHAMMAD SHARIF---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.347/B of 2005, decided on 22nd March, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149---Bail, grant of---None of the accused involved in the case was identified by the prosecution witnesses---Accused had been involved only due to suspicion---Even the injured witness, who had filed a private complaint regarding the same occurrence, had not named the accused therein---Such fact itself was a sound ground to make the case of accused one of further inquiry---Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.
Javaid Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Rana Khalid Mehmood for the State.
Javed Ashraf, S.-I. with record.
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.416 of 2002 dated 2-11-2002 registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Lodhran.
2. Briefly the allegation as per prosecution story is that he on 2-11-2002 at mid night at 12 O'Clock, the complainant along with his sons Zahoor Ahmad and Manzoor Ahmad attracted towards the spot on hearing the noise of his grandson Nazir Ahmad where they in the light of lantern saw that Muhammad Sharif petitioner along with his unknown co-accused armed with different fire-arms was threatening said Nazir Ahmad. On his raising alarm one of the culprits fired hitting Zahoor Ahmad who died at the spot. Another accused injured Manzoor Ahmad with his fire-arm. The complainant stepped ahead who was also caused butt blow on his head. Mst. Sakina also reached there she was also injured by accused persons. On reaching alarm, the P.Ws. attracted towards the spot and the accused fled away.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case. That the complainant failed to produce evidence against the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner was declared innocent during the course of investigation. That the co-accused namely Bilal has been granted bail by the learned trial Court hence the petitioner is also entitled for the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed-the bail petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly none of the accused involved in the case was identified by the P.Ws. and the petitioner has been involved only due to suspicion. One of the injured namely Manzoor filed a private complaint regarding the same occurrence and even he did not nominate the petitioner as accused. Said complaint was dismissed whereafter complainant filed P.S.L.A. and even then petitioner was not named as accused in P.S.L.A. This fact itself is a sound ground to make petitioner's case that of further inquiry. Accordingly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of, learned trial Court.
N.H.Q./M-998/L Bail allowed.