Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR AHMAD VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainMailk Muntazir Mahdi,Muhammad Pervez Qamar Butt
2003 M L D 1417
2003 M L D 1417
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
MANZOOR AHMAD and another---Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.700-B of 2003, decided on 10th April, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-----
----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/304/324/337-A(i)/ 337-F(i)/337-H(ii)/337-L(ii)---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused had been attributed injury with Sota on non-vital parts of the bodies of the injured prosecution witnesses---One of the co-accused had allegedly fired in the air and had threatened the prosecution witnesses, but no injury to any one had been attributed to the co-accused---Two other co accused had been allowed bail and case of accused was identical to that of co-accused and case of co-accused who allegedly had fired in the air, was better than other co-accused---Rule of consistency, would come into play in the case of accused persons---Question of vicarious liability of accused persons for murder of deceased would be gone into at trial---Case of accused requiring further inquiry, they were admitted to bail.
Mailk Muntazir Mahdi for Petitioners.
Muhammad Pervez Qamar Butt for the State.
ORDER
Manzoor Amad and Zahoor Ahmad, the petitioners have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.393, dated 2-8-2002 under sections 302/304/324/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-H(ii)/337-L(ii), P.P.C. registered with Police Station Luddan, District Vehari.
2. The facts of the case were mentioned by me in the order dated 3-3-2003 recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3372-B of 2002. The same, therefore, are not repeated here.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in that their co-accused Riaz and Laloo have been allowed bail by this Court on 3-3-2003 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.367-B of 2003 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.3372-B of 2003, respectively; that the case of petitioner Manzoor Ahmad is quite identical to them; that ease of petitioner No.2 Zahoor Ahmad is on more better footing than them inasmuch as that he has been attributed only ineffective firing and injury to none; and that they are behind the bars and previous non-convicts.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that Manzoor Ahmad petitioner has caused injury to P.Ws. Muhammad Ayaz and Muhammad Imtiaz while Zahoor Ahmad has made firing in the air; and that they are vicariously liable for the offence.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. As regards petitioner No. 1, he has been attributed injury with Sota to Muhammad Ayaz on his right shoulder and to Muhammad Imtiaz on his left upper-arm. These were on the non-vital parts of the body of the injured P.Ws. As regards petitioner No.2, he has allegedly fired in the air and threatened the P.Ws. that if anyone came near them he would be killed. No injury to anyone has been attributed to him. Their co-accused Riaz and Laloo have been allowed bail on 3-3-2003 as stated above. The case of Manzoor Ahmad is identical to them and that of Zahoor Ahmad better than them for the above reason. Hence, the rule of the consistency comes into play in their case.
7. Even otherwise, the question of their vicarious liability for the murder of deceased would be gone into at the trial. Their case, therefore, is also covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into their guilt. They are behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convicts.
8. In these circumstances, they (petitioners) are entitled to bail. This petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari/trial court.
H.B.T./M-1877/L Bail granted.