Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AKMAL VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Iqbal Hameed ur RehmanMalik Javed Akhtar Wains
2007 Y L R 2782
[Lahore]
Before Iqbal Hameed ur Rehman, J
MUHAMMAD AKMAL---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2769-B of 2006, decided on 7th November, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), (ii)& (iii)---Bail, grant of---None of the offences with which accused was charged fell within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Accused was behind the bars for the last one and half years---Accused in circumstances being entitled to concession of bail, was admitted to bail.
Malik Javed Akhtar Wains for Petitioner.
Abdul Ghaffar Sial for the State with Muhammad Ayub, S.-I.
ORDER
IQBAL HAMEED UR REHMAN, J.---Muhammad Akmal, petitioner, was arrested in case F.I.R. No. 101 of 2005, dated 11-5-2005 under sections 337-A(i)/ 337-F(i) (ii) (iii), P.P.C. registered with Police Station Alpa, Multan. Through this miscellaneous petition he seeks post-arrest bail in the said case.
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that on 9-5-2005 at about 8-00 a.m. the complainant was coming from Band Bosan on a bus. The bus was overloaded, therefore, he sat on the roof of the bus. When the bus reached Shell Petrol Pump, Muhammad Akmal, petitioner, who was standing there, also came on the roof of bus and raised Lalkara that he has to teach a lesson to the complainant. Thereafter, he caused many blows with Churri to him. Due to injuries caused by the petitioner the complainant became unconscious and fell on the roof of bus.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R. and for which no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant; that the nature of all the injuries were simple except one injury; that the injuries are on non-vital part of the body; that most of the offences are bailable; that the petitioner was arrested on 17-5-2005 and more than one and half year has lapsed; that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is non-convict. It is further submitted that one of the eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Ali has given an affidavit that he was not present at the time of occurrence.
4. The bail petition has been opposed by the learned State counsel. .It-is submitted by the State counsel that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. with a specific role; the recovery of knife has been effected from him and the challan has been submitted on 25-5-2005.
5. Arguments heard and record perused. None of the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last one and half year. In the circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. This petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./M-203/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.