Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Mushir AlamNisar Ahmed G. Abro,S. Mehboob Ali Shah
2005 Y L R 850
2005 Y L R 850
[Karachi]
Before Mushir Alam, J
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ‑‑‑Applicant
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.408 of 2004 decided on 13th July, 2004.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/114/148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Accused though was allegedly carrying gun but no overt act was attributed to him‑‑ Even there was no allegation against accused that he instigated accused to commit the crime or that he fired in the air to scare away the complainant‑‑‑Case for grant of bail having been made out, accused was granted bail.
Nisar Ahmed G. Abro for Applicant.
S. Mehboob Ali Shah for the State.
ORDER
Muhammad Ibrahim son of Haji Andal facing trial in Crime No.47 of 2004, Police Station, Nasirabad for an offence under sections 302, 148, 149, 114, P.P.C. seeks bail on the ground, inter alia, that no role has been assigned, nor recovery has been effected from the present applicant though he was arrested on 21‑5‑2004. One of the co‑accused Qasim son of Andal who is alleged to have instigated the commission of the crime has been let off by the police and placed in Column No.2 of the challan. Overt act is attributed to Haleem of giving Danda blow to father of the complainant Jan Muhammad and hatchet blow is attributed to Bashir Ahmed and Shabir is alleged to have inflicted other side of hatchet and Lathi blow respectively to the son of the complainant. Bail was declined by the learned trial Court i.e. on the promise that the F.I.R. was prompt, accused are named in the F.I.R. and there are serious allegations against accused persons who were implicated by witnesses, medical evidence corroborates the ocular version.
Mr. Mehboob Ali Shah, learned State counsel conceded that, no overt act is attributed to the applicant.
I have also considered the submissions made by the applicant's counsel and perused the F.I.R., which shows that though the applicant was alleged to carrying gun, but no overt act is attributed towards him, no even instigation or even fire in air to scare away the complainant. Such circumstances to in my view case is made out, applicant is extended bail subject to furnishing of a solvent surety in the sum of Rs. one hundred thousand and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. In case the applicant abuses the concession of bail, the learned trial Court may cancel the same.
H.B.T./M‑ 74/K Bail granted.