Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AMIN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice BASHIR A. MUJAHIDZafar Iqbal Chohan,Malik Mubarak
2004 M L D 438
2004 M L D 438
[Lahore]
Before Bashir A. Mujahid and Mrs. Nasira Iqbal, JJ
MUHAMMAD AMIN ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1254‑B of 2002, decided on 18th March, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.395‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was arrested after 24 days from registration of F.I.R. and was sent to judicial lock‑up after completion of investigation‑‑‑Copy of order‑sheet had shown that delay was not attributable to accused‑‑‑Co‑accused had not been arrested‑‑‑Accused was previously non‑convict‑‑‑Bail could not be withheld as a punishment.
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
Malik Mubarak for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th March, 2002.
ORDER
BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Amin petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.197 of 2000, dated 18‑6‑2000 under section 395, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Garjakh, Distt. Gujranwala at the instance of Muhammad Abdullah with the allegation that his co‑accused hired taxi from the complainant from Renala Khurd and he took the co‑accused of the petitioner to Gujranwala where they spent a night and on the next day all the accused including the petitioner were going to Sheikhuprua and on the way they snatched the taxi after tieing the hands of the driver and threw him in the field and took away the taxi. After arrest bail was refused to the petitioner vide this Courts order dated 4‑6‑2001 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2722‑B of 2001 mainly on the ground that trial has already commenced.
2. The petitioner has repeated his petition challenging that he was arrested on 2‑7‑2000 and at the time when he filed the earlier petition for bail the challan was submitted before the Court of Special Judge, ATC as it was scheduled offence but now after amendments in the law the case has been transferred to Judicial Magistrate and the co‑accused so far have not been arrested and delay is not attributable to the petitioner. He is in continuous incarceration since his arrest, therefore, he is entitled for concession of bail. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he was not accompanying his‑co‑accused at the time when the vehicle was hired by his co‑accused.
3. Conversely, the bail has been opposed by the learned State Counsel.
Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner was arrested on 2‑7‑2000 and after completion of investigation he has been sent in judicial lock‑up. Copy of the order sheet produced by the learned counsel shows that the delay is not attributable to the petitioner. His co‑accused have not been arrested so far. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. The petitioner is previously non‑convict. Bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.
5. Therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑2422/L Bail granted.