PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 99
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Ali Zia Bajwa, J.
MUHAMMAD IKHLAQ--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 935-B of 2023, decided on 20.2.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/322/148/149--Cross version--supplementary statement--rule of consistency--Post Arrest Bail--grant of--The petitioner is not named in the cross-version--The petitioner was implicated in this case through supplementary statements of the complainant and eye-witnesses recorded after about seven days of the alleged occurrence, wherein too no specific injury on the person of the deceased was attributed to him--The presence of the petitioner has also not been shown in main case FIR--Two co-accused persons have already been granted post-arrest bail by High Court--Petitioner is also entitled to the same relief on the rule of consistency--No useful purpose would be served while keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period--The instant bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail.
[Para 4, 5 & 6] A, B, C & D
2023 SCMR 184 ref.
Khawaia Qaisar Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Ansar Yaseen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing 20.2.2023.
Order
Through this petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in cross-version registered under Sections 322, 302, 148 and 149, PPC in case FIR No. 654/2022, dated 16.09.2022, offences under Sections 302, 324, 353, 186, 427 and 34, PPC read with Sections 13-2(a)/20 of The Punjab Arms Ordinance. 1965 with Police Station Saddar Vehari.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that on the intervening night of 15/16.09.2022, he along with his co-accused committed murder of Ali Liaquat son of the complainant.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The careful scrutiny of the record available on the file reflects that the petitioner is not named in the cross-version which was got lodged by the complainant against six police officials and four private persons. As per contents of the cross-version, specific injury on left thigh of the deceased was attributed to the co-accused. whereas general role of making firing, hitting one bullet to the deceased, was attributed to the remaining accused persons of the cross-version. The petitioner was implicated in this case through supplementary statements of the complainant and eye-witnesses recorded on 23.09.2022 i.e. after about seven days of the alleged occurrence, wherein too no specific injury on the person of the deceased was attributed to him, rather according to them, the petitioner was found present while making firing with his official weapon at the spot. He presence of the petitioner has also not been shown in main case FIR No. 654/2022, registered under Sections 324, 353, 186, 427 & 34, PPC read with Sections 13-2(a)/20 of The Punjab Arms Ordinance, 1965 against the deceased and his companions. The real/actual rafts of the case would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. During the course of investigation, three nominated accused persons were found not involved in this case by the investigating officer. Similarly, during investigation, offence under Section 302, PPC was substituted with offence under Section 322, PPC. The record further reflects that co-accused Muhammad Atif Khan and Asghar Ali have already been granted post-arrest bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.01.2023 and 07.02.2023 respectively hence, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief on the rule of consistency in view of case law titled “Muhammad Nadim versus The State and another” (2023 SCMR 184). All the above narrated facts and circumstances make the case of the present petitioner one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
5. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and no more required to the police for the purposes of further investigation. No useful purpose would be served while keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period. If the accused is found guilty during trial, he would be convicted and sentenced accordingly, but if he is acquitted, there would be no compensation for deprivation of his liberty by putting him behind the bars in case of refusal of bail.
6. Resultantly, the instant bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
(M.A.B.) Bail allowed
0 Comments