Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ARIF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Syed Shabbar Raza RizviFaryad Ali Chaudhary,Masood Ahmad Zafar
2006 P Cr
2006 P Cr. L J 1707
[Lahore]
Before Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J
MUHAMMAD ARIF----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8438/B of 2005, decided on 21st February, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii) (iv), 148 & 149---Bail, refusal of---Name of accused was mentioned in F.I.R. with a specific role of causing fire-arm injury to one person---Deeper appreciation of evidence was not possible at bail stage---Prima facie, record submitted in bail application of two co-accused, which had been withdrawn, suggested that prosecution witnesses were available on the previous dates of hearing, but evidence could not be recorded on request of counsel for accused---Accused could not be allowed to take advantage of delay in conclusion of trial---Bail was refused.
Faryad Ali Chaudhary for Petitioner.
Masood Ahmad Zafar for the Complainant.
Miss Sumairah Efzal for the State.
Abdul Ghani S.-I.
ORDER
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The petitioner filed this bail application for after arrest bail in F.I.R. No.199 of 2004 dated 21-5-2004 under sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii), (iv), 148 and 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadder, District Kasur.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he fired with his rifle which caused injury to one Muhammad Din on his right shoulder.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation against the petitioner is of firing with rifle but M.L.R. shows that injuries were 1 x 1 c.m. deep. This kind of injury can be caused by a pellet of .12 bore gun and not with the rifle. He submits that case against the petitioner is of further inquiry. He submits that petitioner has already suffered imprisonment for more than one year, but the trial has not concluded yet.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He was declared proclaimed offender. After his arrest, he had been found guilty by the Investigating Officer.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant in the separate bail application of co-accused produced record during the course of arguments which shows that on the previous dates of hearing evidence of the prosecution was available in the Court but the case was adjourned on request of accused party. In this regard, reference is made to orders dated 26-11-2005, 10-12-2005, 17-12-2005. The learned counsel for the complainant also submitted some more F.I.Rs. in which the petitioner is also mentioned.
6. The name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R. with a specific role of causing fire-arm injury to one person. Apparently, a cognizable case has been made out against him. At this stage, deeper appreciation of evidence is not possible. Prima facie, the record submitted in bail application of two co-accused which has been withdrawn, suggest that prosecution witnesses were available in the previous dates of hearing but evidence could not be recorded on request of the learned counsel for the accused/petitioners. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of delay in conclusion of the trial. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within three months.
This bail application is, however, dismissed for reasons discussed above.
H.B.T./M-348/L Bail refused.