PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1264
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34--Post arrest bail, grant of--Plea of Alibi--CCTV footage--Finding of Investigating officer--Allegation of making fire shot with pistol upon the chest and pistol but on the left cheek of the deceased--Police official has obtained CCTV footage of the bank and also recorded the statements of the bank and also recorded the statements of the bank officers present there--As per CCTV, a clip of one hour encompasses the petitioner inside the bank--Motive was attributed to co-accused who had a dispute with co-accused--Overall situation indicates that present petitioner has been involved in this case, being the brother of co-accused--Plea of Alibi has also been appreciated by the police--Post arrest bail is allowed.
[Pp. 1265 & 1266] A & B
2021 SCMR 63 ref.
Ch. Shakir Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Malik, DPG for State.
Kh. Qaisar Butt, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 1.7.2022.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1264
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 3755-B of 2022, decided on 1.7.2022.
Order
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 77/2022 dated 22.02.2022 under Section 302/34, PPC Police Station Doulat Gate, Multan.
2. The petitioner is under the allegation of making a fire shot with pistol which upon the chest of Zeeshan and pistol butt on the left cheek of deceased. Co-accused Madni, real brother, was also under the allegation of making fire shot upon the body of Zeeshan.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been falsely involved in the case being the brother of Madni, co-accused, otherwise, he was not available at the place of occurrence, his plea of alibi has been verified by the police during investigation, according to which the occurrence was of 2.35 p.m. on 22.02.2022, whereas, his presence around that time was found in the bank at a distance of 6/7 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance on the case “Jahanzeb and others versus State through A.G. Khyher Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and another” (2021 SCMR 63). It was seriously resisted by learned counsel for the complainant who Stated that according to police investigation the plea of alibi was not raised at the initial stage. When he joined the investigation on 20.03.2022 he raised his plea for the first time and police after attending the material then available concluded that he was found involved in the commission of the offence, because CDR of his phone showing no call from 12.40 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., therefore, proof of his location is also not available. Further states that distance between the place of occurrence and the bank could easily be covered within 25/30 minutes and if we match this time, the time of occurrence and presence of the petitioner in the bank, it calculates the same amount of time. Further says that one Naveed shop keeper was joined into investigation who stated that he had seen the petitioner at the shop at 3.00 p.m. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the complainant referred the cases reported as “Muhammad Abbasi versus State and another” (PLJ 2012 SC 169), “Shoukar Ilahi versus Javed Iqbal, etc.” (PLJ 2011 SC 40) and “Muhammad Afzal versus The State” (2012 SCMR 707). The police official present in Court stated that he has obtained CCTV footage of the bank and also recorded the statements of bank officers present over there and that as per CCTV a clip of one hour from 3.08 to 4.08 p.m. encompasses the petitioner inside the bank. Plenty of facts makes this case a bit complex in terms of a relief inclination towards accused petitioner which was finally settled by the I.O. when he was asked about the motive of this case, he stated that motive was attributed to Madni, co-accused who had a dispute with Zeeshan deceased. Further facts disclosed by him need not to be discussed in this bail granting order, which would better be seen by the learned trial Court. The overall situation indicates that present petitioner has been involved in this case, being the brother of Madni and his plea of alibi has also been appreciated by the police, which entitles him to get premium of bail at this stage of proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Jahanzeb and others versus State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and another” (2021 SCMR 63), with reference to Section 497(2), Cr.P.C, has held as under:
“Perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals the intent of the legislature disclosing pre-condition to establish the word “guilt” against whom accusation is levelled has to be established on the basis of reasonable ground, however, if there exists any possibility to have a second view of the material available on the record then the case advanced against whom allegation is levelled is entitled for the relief in the spirit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.”
4. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
(M.A.B.) Bail allowed
0 Comments