IN THE COURT OF MUHAMMAD SOHÅIL ADDITIONAL SES5rONS -X ISLAMÅBAD (WEST)
Zakir Jaffar and another vs The State
APPLICATION FOR POST ARREST BAIL U/S 497 P C.
05 082021
Present Raja Rizwan Abbasi Advocate for petitioner/accused zakir Jaffar
Mr. Asad Jamal Advocate for petitioner/accused Ms,Asmat Zakir Jaffar
Complainant Mr. Shaukat Ali Mokadam
Mr. Shah Khawar Advocate representing complainant District Prosecutor Chudary Muhammad Naseem Zia associated wrth /Muhommad Wajid Munir DDP. representing the State nspector Abdul Sattar being Investigating Officer Of the case along with record
ORDER.
Petitioners/accused Zakir Jaffar Son Of Abdul Qadir Joffar and Mst. Åsmat Zakir Jaffar wife of Zakir Jaffor seek post arrest boil in case FIR No.380/21, dated 20072021, registered in the offences under Sections 511, 176 PP.c Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad.
2. The complainant initially lodged the subject FIR with a precise allegation against Zahir Zakir S/O Zakir Jaffar (i.e. principal accused). who committed quatl-e-amd of complainant's daughter NoorMokadam. however, during the course of investigation. the frightful role of certain other persons including present petittoners/accused got purportedly unveiled. who aided the principal accused through willful concealment of facts and intentionally omitted to timely report the matter to police, in consequence thereof they facilitated their son (i.e. principal accused) to commit murder of aforenamed victim. and thereafter attempted to cause disappearance of evidences, and as such, considering the aforementioned position as well as a supplementary statement of complainant dated 24-07-2021, offences under Sec. 176, 109, 201, 511 PPC were inserted and petitioners/accused 90t arrested. Later on. one further offence (i.e.
Sec, 118 PPC) was also inserted.
3. District Prosecutor representing the State duly assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the instant bail petition with vehemence.
4 I have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides at length and have also perused the record. My observations are as under:-
As per record, initially the son of petitioners/accused was specifically nominated in the promptly lodged FIR for commission of gruesome murder of complainant's daughter (i.e. Mst. Noor Muqadam) by severely torturing and beheading her. Later on. the role of certain other persons including petitioners/accused got divulgedduring investigation, whereupon police inserted offences U/Sec. 109, 118. 176, 201 and 511 ppc.
As highlighted during the course of arguments, Call Detail Record (CD R.) of principal accused, present petitioners/accused and certain other persons has already been collected during the course of investigation which, white being put in juxtaposition with other evidences on record, sufficiently connects the petitioners/accused with the commission of alleged offences.
It is also noteworthy that on the day of sorrowful happening, the victim/deceased, most probably under fear of death from the hands of Zahir Zakir (i.e. principal accused), made a desperate attempt to escape from the clutches of principal accused by jumping from the first floor of petitioner house, however, was caught and dragged in. As narrated by prosecution. the present petitioners/accused, who were in constant contact with their son (i.e. principal accused), despite getting prompt information of aforementioned occurrence. sent personnel from a Rehabilitation Center instead of immediately reporting the matter to local police. and as such, they not only caused abetment, but also made utmost efforts to wipe off the evidences of the alleged murder committed by their son (i.e. principal accused).There ts sufficient incriminating material available on the record to connect the present petitioners/accused with the commission of alleged offences, while no proof as to any previous grudge or enmity on the part of ccmpfarnant or police has been brought on record. /%oreover, the offences leveled upon the petitioners/accuscd. which includes abetment of offence commgtted by principal accused. are quite ser-jous tn nature. and falls within the prohibitory clause cf Section 497 CrP.C wherein the relief of bail IS to be extended only in exceptional circumstances, it cannot be disputed that only tentative assessment of available material is to be made at the time of deciding a early petition and thrashing of case in detail is not
Warranted
have perused the case laws reported in 1989 P.Cr.LJ
1992 PCrLJ 58(F). 2018 PCr.L J Note 172. 2012
1370, PLO 2004 Lahore; 1996 SOMA 493: PID
1999 sc 585 2020 scatA 1814 2007 YLR 1405; 2006
2920. 2009 37. 2011 SCMR 161. 2020 P,Cr.L.J 776 2017 YLR 2524, 2003 SCMR 426. 2001 scatR 14.
2021 supreme Court 708. 2009 1210, 2005 YLR 1073, and Lahore 344 referred by the both learned counsel representing petitioners/accused but facts and circumstances of the said esteemed case laws and principles enunciated there do not cover the instant proposition on all the fours.
The way the things hove gone through leads me to observe that there is reasonable ground to believe that petitioners/accused have committed non-boilable offences. As such, r am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/accused. and consequently the instant post arrest bail application is hereby dismissed.
6. Needless to mention at this juncture. that theaforementioned findings are tentative in nature. and as such, the same shall not affect the merits of the case at the time of trial, Police record be returned while this file be conggned to the record room after its due completion,
Announced.
Certified that this order consist of five (05) pages. each of which has been dictated, read, corrected and signed
D6E-X
GamScanner
0 Comments