Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAZIR AHMAD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Khawaja Muhammad SharifSyed Hasham Raza Shamsi and Mian Ghulam Rasool,Mian Mehraj Din along with Muhammad Arshad
2007 M L D 468
2007 M L D 468
[Lahore]
Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
NAZIR AHMAD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 8825-B and 8923-B of 2005, decided on 20th December, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 337-A(i), L(ii)---Bail, refusal of---Two persons were murdered and one was injured in the court premises---Accused, who were members of unlawful assembly, were named in F.I.R.---Complainant who was injured during occurrence, was medically examined---Offence against accused falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C., no case for grant of bail was made out.
Syed Hasham Raza Shamsi and Mian Ghulam Rasool for Petitioner.
Mian Mehraj Din along with Muhammad Arshad A.S.-I. for the State.
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8825-B-2005 titled as Nazir Ahmad v. State and Criminal Miscellaneous No.8923-B-2005 tilted as Muhammad Ramzan v. State.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for Nazir Ahmad petitioner that petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased, that simple injury under section 337-A(i), L-(ii) is attributed to the petitioner, that it will be seen at the time of trial that the petitioner was member of unlawful assembly that according to investigation, though petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but was empty-handed.
3. Learned counsel for Ramzan petitioner submits that according to report under section 173, Cr.P.C. though he was present at the spot but was empty-handed and he ran away from the spot; that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that petitioners along with their co-accused came at the spot and they committed the offence; that they have been found guilty aad have been placed in Column No.3 of the challan and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case two persons namely Anwar Ali and Faryad Ali were murdered while Akhtar Ali was injured in the Court premises. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. They were member of unlawful assembly. The complainant was injured during the occurrence and he was medically examined. As far as report under section 173, Cr.P.C. is concerned, petitioner Ramzan was present at the spot and was empty-handed, this finding is not binding upon this Court. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No case for bail is made out. Both these petitions stand dismissed.
H.B.T./N-110/L Bail Refused.