Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RIAZ VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Mian Muhammad JehangirAltaf Ibrahim Qureshi,Muhammad Manzoor Bhatti
2002 Y L R 3607
2002 Y L R 3607
[Lahore]
Before Mian Muhammad Jehangir, J
MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2737‑B of 2001, decided on 28th November, 2001.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Deceased had died of Chhuri blows at the spot‑‑‑No fire‑arm injury had been found on the body of the deceased‑‑‑Accused had been nominated in a supplementary statement as armed with a pistol‑‑‑Perusal of the record revealed that discharge report had been prepared as against the accused upon finding him innocent‑‑‑Accused had not caused any injure, to the deceased‑‑‑Accused was granted bail in circumstances.
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Muhammad Manzoor Bhatti for the State.
ORDER
As a result of the case bearing F.I.R. No.433 registered with Police Station Pakpattan Sharif, on 15‑8‑2001, under section 302/34. P.P.C., Muhammad Riaz petitioner stands involved in the allegation that while armed with pistol he was out of two unknown persons who took part in the incident alongwith co‑accused Ijaz Ahmad as a consequence of which at about 12‑10 a.m. (mid night) Muhammad Shahban was injured with Chhuri blows who died at the spot, while the accused persons fled away. So at the instance of Liaqat Ali son of the deceased the above said case was registered and that name of the petitioner appeared on scene when the supplementary statement of the complainant on 9‑9‑2001 was recorded.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation of this case and that the discharge report was drafted and presented before the Illaqa Magistrate but he did not agree with the same that the name of the petitioner came on the record through the supplementary statement which was recorded after 24 days and that even in the supplementary statement it was shown that the petitioner was present at the spot while armed with a pistol, but in accordance with the contents of the F.I.R. the accused armed with pistol had not caused any injury to the deceased and that the role of hardly raising lalkara was attributed to the petitioner. Further submits that no fire‑arm injury was found on the body of the deceased, therefore. it is a case of further inquiry. During arguments after perusing the record, learned State counsel confirmed this fact that the petitioner was found innocent by the local police.
3. The perusal of the record reveals that on finding the petitioner as innocent the discharge report was drafted. The learned State Counsel on Court's query, as to what is the evidence against the petitioner, replied again and again that there is nothing on record except the supplementary statement which nominated the petitioner as to be accused armed with a pistol, therefore, if this is the position then it means that he did not cause any injury to the deceased. At this stage there is no sound material to oppose the opinion of the Investigating Officer, the petitioner is in the Jail and no more required by the police for any further investigation therefore, it is a fit case for bail.
4. As a consequence of it, Muhammad Riaz petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes surety bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Pakpattan Sharif.
While accepting the bail bonds the learned Sessions Judge shall give the specific date for appearance of the petitioner in the Court concerned and thereafter petitioner shall continue to appear there on each and every date of hearing till the receipt of the challan and also thereafter till disposal of the case.
Petition is hereby accepted.
H.B.T./M‑1211/L Bail granted.