Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Respondent: STATE
1997 M L D 3253
1997 M L D 3253
[Lahore]
Before Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 102‑B of 1997, decided on 23rd February, 1997.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/379/109/148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑‑Co‑accused who were alleged to have caused fatal and other injuries had already been released on bail by Court below where they had been declared innocent by the Police and case called for further inquiry‑‑‑Accused were entitled to grant of bail in circumstances as law should not be stretched in favour of prosecution.
Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277 rel.
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Muhammad Rafique Ahmad for the State
ORDER
The petitioner seeks bail in case. F. I. R. No. 146. of 1996 dated 21‑5‑1996 under sections 302/3241379/109/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif prosecution story, briefly stated, is that ejectment from the land in possession of complainant, Nasir Zaman was sought by one Haroon‑ur‑Rashid, forcibly on 21‑5‑1996. The petitioners armed with 12 bore gun accompanied other accused, who were variously armed with rifles and guns, came at the spot to take forcible possession.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no injury has been attributed to the present petitioner and the recovery of gun is inconsequential in this case. He has further submitted that the application of sections 148/ 149/ 109, P.P.C. is a matter that calls for further inquiry. He has further submitted that the main accused, who were attributed fire‑arm injuries to the deceased and P. Ws. have already been released on bail, and that a private complaint with regard to the same occurrence is also pending before the Competent Court.
3. Since the co‑accused, who were alleged to have caused fatal injuries and other ones have already been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, when they have been declared innocents by the police. This case in my view calls for further inquiry. It is now well‑settled principle of law that for the purpose of bail the law is not to be stretched in favour of the prosecution as is held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case Amir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277). I do not want to dilate upon the merits and demrits of the case at this stage. Ghulam Sadiq, A.S.I., present with record states that the case has been sent up for trial but the investigation is being conducted by Range Crime ‑ Branch. Following the Rule of Consistency the petitioner is also granted bail in the sum of Rs.40,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate, Arif Wala, District Pakpattan.
H.B.T./M‑392/L Bail granted.