Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS Respondent: STATE
1997 M L D 2781
1997 M L D 2781
[Lahore]
Before Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
MUHAMMAD AMJAD alias BILLA‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3345 A/B of 1994, decided on 1st September, 1994.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 394‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Prosecution case against accused was that he and his other co‑accused were armed with "Churri" and "mauser" respectively and they, with use of their respective weapons started looting passengers of the bus and also forced driver to proceed in a particular direction‑‑‑Accused during the process gave Churri blows to conductor of bus who was seriously injured‑‑‑During course of investigation, respective weapons were recovered from the accused and Medical Certificate of injured conductor, had supported prosecution version‑‑‑Five persons, including two private individuals and three Police Constables in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. had supported prosecution version‑‑‑Offences of accused were grave and punishable up to imprisonment for life‑‑‑Reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused was connected with crime alleged against him and since offence committed by him fell within prohibition clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. he was not entitled to grant of bail.
Muhammad Saddiq Chughtai for Petitioner. Khalid Mahmood Farooqi for the State.
ORDER
Muhammad Amjad alias Billa, petitioner, is an accused in case F.I.R. No. 148 of 1993, registered at Police Station City Pattoke, District Kasur, under section 394, P.P.C. and section 17 of Offences Against Property Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance No.VI of 1979. The case has been registered at the behest of Rahim Bux, the driver of Flying Coach No.LPT‑5976. He stated in tile F.I.R. that on 4‑9‑1993 at about 8 p.m. he started form Lahore to Burewala. When he reached B.S. Link, two passengers sitting on the last seat got up. The passengers' names were discovered and added in the F.I.R., one of them being the petitioner. It is claimed that both the petitioners and Muhammad Ramzan, the other co‑accused were armed with churri and mouser respectively. It is alleged that with the use of their respective weapons they started looting the passengers and also forced the driver to proceed in a particular direction. It is alleged that in the process, the present petitioner gave churri blows to Shaukat Ali, Conductor who was seriously injured. It is said that near Railway Phatak Pattoke, a passenger, namely, Muhammad Ismail alongwith some others took courage and jumped out of the running flying coach and informed the Constable. The police Constables chased on motorcycle. Shaukat Ali, Conductor, took courage and apprehended Muhammad Ramzan accused, while the present petitioner managed to effect an escape. Thereafter, the subject report was lodged with the police.
2. I have seen the case file with the assistance of learned counsel which has been produced before me by the Investigating Officer. During the course of investigation, respective weapons have been 'recovered from the accused. Medical Certificate of Shaukat Ali injured supports the prosecution version. Five persons, namely, Shaukat, Ghaffar and three Police Constables in their statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. have supported the prosecution version. The offences arc grave and punishable upto imprisonment for life. Prima facie, there appear reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is connected with the crime alleged against him and since the offences fall within the prohibitory clause the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, presses the grant of bail on the ground that in the circumstances the petitioner ought to have been subjected to the identification parade and in the absence of the same no credence can be attached to the statements of the prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that there has been no recovery of cash nor the Churri recovered from the petitioner is alleged to be blood‑stained. I am afraid all these grounds are not sufficient to detract from the prima facie credibility of the material collected during the investigation which connects the petitioner with the commission of crime. The above points can more appropriately be appreciated at the stage of determining the ultimate guilt of the petitioner, after recording of evidence.
4. Learned counsel also prays for bail on the ground that his client was arrested on 21‑10‑1993 and so far no challan, complete or incomplete, has been filed in any Court. I have questioned the Investigating Officer in this regard and he states that the challan has been submitted to the District Attorney's Office for examination and onward transmission to the competent Court. The point that the learned counsel for the petitioner has made is that in the absence of challan the remand of the petitioner to jail is illegal because after the initial period of investigation the accused can only be detained by an order under section 344, Cr.P.C. which order can only be passed if the challan, complete or incomplete, has been submitted to the trial Court.
5. Even if the legal position canvassed may have strength in it, I am afraid in the present proceedings I cannot investigate the same and give a considered finding. This aspect of the case could perhaps better be examined and adjudicated in. the petition for habeas corpus because in those proceedings the detaining authority will be required to show the validity of the order under which the person is being held in jail or lock‑up. The present file of the case does not contain anything on record for deciding the submissions of the learned counsel one way or the other.
6. As I have held above that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged against him which are punishable upto imprisonment for life, I dismissed this bail application.
H.B.T./M‑2164/L Petition dismissed.