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: StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Akhtar ShabbirAltaf Ibrahim Qureshi,Muhammad Aslam
2010 Y L R 747
2010 Y L R 747
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2679/B of 2006, decided on 26th September, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 337-A(iii)/34--- Shajjah-i-hashimah---Bail, grant of---No enmity existed between the parties and the occurrence had taken place suddenly due to exchange of hot words between the complainant and accused party---Accused had approached the complainant and only asked him to return the amount which he had obtained as loan and he had not gone to the complainant with the intention to commit the offence---Complainant who was plying a vehicle was stopped by accused and demanded the loan amount from him---Had accused party the intention to commit the offence, they would have gone prepared for the same---Guilt of accused was yet to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the prosecution evidence---Accused who was behind the bars since 30-5-2006, was no more required by the police for further investigation---Challan of the case had been sent to the court of competent jurisdiction---No likelihood being of the early conclusion of the trial, it would not be in the interest of justice to detain accused in jail for indefinite period---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Mian Abdul Quddus for the State with Muhammad Aslam, S.-I. for-Respondent.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.148/2006 dated 11-4-2006 registered under section 337-A(iii)/34 P.P.C. at Police Station City Burewala, District Vehari.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that he caused an injury with iron rod which hit on the nose of the complainant Ashiq Ali as a result of which his nasal bone was fractured.
3. Post-arrest bail of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Burewala vide his order dated 27-7-2006.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is only one injury attributed to the petitioner and he has not repeated the same. The petitioner has been involved mala fide in the case. Further contended that the incident has been occurred due to sudden flare up on a minor dispute when the petitioner was demanding Rs.200 from the complainant.
5. The grant of bail has vehemently been opposed by the learned counsel for the State contending that the offence is punishable within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is admitted position that there was no enmity between the parties and the occurrence has taken place suddenly due to exchange of hot words between the complainant and the petitioner party. The petitioner has approached the complainant and only asked him to return Rs. 200 which he has obtained as loan and they have not gone to the complainant with the intention to commit the offence. The occurrence has taken place suddenly. The complainant who is plying a vehicle/DHALA was stopped by the petitioner and demanded the loan of Rs.200 from him. Had the petitioner and the co-accused intention to commit the offence, they would have prepared for the same. The guilt of the accused is yet to be determined by the trial Court after recording the prosecution evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars since 30-5-2006 and no more required by the police for further investigation. Challan of the case has been sent to the Court of competent jurisdiction. There is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial and it would not be in the interest of justice to detain the petitioner in Jail for indefinite period.
8. For the foregoing reasons and without prejudicing the merits of the case, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate concerned.
H.B.T./M-368/L Bail granted.