Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUMTAZ HUSSAIN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Ijaz Ahmad ChaudhryDr. Ehsan-ul-Haq Khan,Syed Tahir Abbas
2006 M L D 1274
2006 M L D 1274
[Lahore]
Before Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J
MUMTAZ HUSSAIN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2721-B of 2006, decided on 28th April, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 337-A(i), L(ii),F(iii), 334, 336, 342, 148 & 149---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was not armed with any fire-arm, but allegedly he was armed with Sota during the time of incident and according to complainant, he had not caused any injury to any of victim during incident and injuries caused to victim with Sota fell within ambit of S.337-A(i) and L(ii), P.P.C., which were bailable offences---Two persons from the side of accused party were also alleged to have received fire-arm injuries during occurrence, which were suppressed by complainant in his statement before the police---Private complaint filed by co-accused was. still pending adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction---Case of accused was not distinguishable from the case of co-accused who was granted bail by High Court---Accused who was behind the bars, his person was no more required by police for further investigation as same was complete---Bail could not be withheld as a punishment---Whether accused had shared common intention with co-accused in the commission of crime, was a question of further inquiry, which would be seen by the Trial Court after recording evidence---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Dr. Ehsan-ul-Haq Khan for Petitioner.
Syed Tahir Abbas for the State.
Ajmal Hussain, A.S.-I. with record.
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Mumtaz Hussain (petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.341 of 2005 dated 10-9-2005, registered under sections 324, 342, 337/A(i), L(ii), F(iii), 334, 336, 148 and 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Sarai Mughal District Kasur on the statement of Muhammad Israil complainant.
2. The brief facts as alleged in the F.I.R. are that on 9-9-2005 at about 5-00 p.m. Nasir Mehmood, Muhammad Shoaib (sons) and Shakaib (nephew) of the complainant were-going to mosque. In the way Liaquat Ali, Asghar, Ramzan, Zulfiqar and Shabbir (co-accused), armed with .12 bore guns respectively, Mumtaz Hussain (petitioner) armed with Sota were found sitting on the roof of house of Farzand Ali. When the sons and nephew of the complainant reached near the house of Labba Masih, Mumtaz Hussain (petitioner) and Asghar (co-accused) raised a lalkara to teach them a lesson to oppose in elections, upon which Zulfiqar co-accused made straight fire with gun, which hit Shakaib on his right leg and left foot. Liaquat Ali (co-accused) made fire hitting on the left side of chest and arms of Muhammad Shoaib. Asghar co-accused accused made a fire with gun hitting Shoaib on his face, neck and head due to which his tooth and eye were damaged. Muhammad Shoaib fell down on the ground. Muhammad Ramzan co-accused again made a fire hitting Nasir Mehmood on his face, arms and waist. The accused Zulfiqar made again fire hitting Shakaib on his left leg and foot. The accused person also took away Zafar Iqbal in their Haveli while making firing in the air, where they after tying him with rope also gave severe beating to him. Mumtaz Hussain (petitioner) also gave him beating with Sota blows.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not armed with any fire-arm and had also not caused any injury with fire-arm to any victim during the occurrence and he is only attributed injury on the person of Zafar Iqbal (victim) with Sota and said injury falls within the ambit of section 337/A(i) and L(ii), P.P.C. which are bailable; that whether the petitioner had shared common intention with the co-accused in the commission of crime is a question of further inquiry, which will be seen by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence; that case of the present petitioner is at par with the case of co-accused Liaquat Ali, who was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7-4-2006, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment.
4. The learned State counsel has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is involved in so many criminal cases and he is desperate, hardened and criminal bent of mind. The injury caused to Zafar Iqbal (victim) was attributed to the present petitioner and he was member of unlawful assembly; that the petitioner along with his co-accused had launched murderous assault upon the complainant party and offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. and his bail petition may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the I parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. The petitioner was not armed with any fire-arm, but allegedly he was armed with Sota during the time of incident and according to the complainant, he had not caused any injury to any of victim during the incident and injuries caused to Zafar Iqbal (victim) with Sota falls within the ambit of sections 337/A(i) and L(ii), P.P.C. which are bailable offences. It is also found that two persons namely Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Zubair from the side of the petitioner were also alleged A to have received fire-arm injuries during the occurrence, which were suppressed by the complainant in his statement before the police. The private complaint filed by co-accused is still pending adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of co-accused, who was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 4-7-2006. The petitioner is behind the bars and his person is no more required by the police for "further investigation, as the same is complete. The bail cannot be withheld as a punishment. Even otherwise, there is tendency in the society that close relatives of the main accused also involved in the occurrence by widening the net and as such role of each accused has also to be considered at bail stage. Whether the petitioner had shared common intention with the co-accused in the commission of crime is a question of further inquiry, which will be seen by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-257/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.