PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 126
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
MUHAMMAD NADEEM alias BADSHAH--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 1755-B of 2024, decided on 25.3.2024.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109, 148/149--Statement of co-accused--Supplementary statement--Not nominate in FIR--No identification parade--Post arrest bail--Grant of--Petitioner is not nominated in the FIR--Petitioner was arrested on the disclosure of co-accused but test identification parade of the petitioner was not conducted--No specific injury to deceased has been attributed to the petitioner--Co-accused has been granted post-arrest bail--Investigation is complete--Petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation--Petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail. [Para 4 & 5] A, B, C, D
2012 SCMR 1137; 2015 PCrLJ 1812 ref.
Rana Umar Daraz Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Hassan Mahmood Khan Tareen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Nemo for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 25.03.2024.
Order
Despite issuance of service no one has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 696/2022, dated 19.12.2022, for offences under Sections 302, 109, 148/149, PPC registered at Police Station Sarai Sidhu District Khanewal.
2. Precisely, as per the prosecution story, on 19.12.2022 at about 03:45 p.m, accused Mukhtiar alongwith four unknown accused persons duly armed with respective weapons intercepted Muhammad Ramzan, husband of complainant and made straight firing upon him who succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of FIR reveals that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR. There is nothing available in the police record which would suggest that supplementary statement was recorded by the complainant or anyone else by nominating present petitioner in the commission of crime. Record further evinces that the petitioner was arrested on the disclosure of co-accused Mukhtiar but test identification parade of the petitioner was not conducted in this case. No specific injury to deceased has been attributed to the petitioner The co-accused Mukhtiar who is specifically nominated in the FIR and has been saddled with the allegation of instigation of unknown co-accused to commit the Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) has been granted post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2023. These facts surely render the case against the petitioner for one of further inquiry calling into his guilt. Wisdom is drawn from the case titled “Ehsan Ullah vs. The State” (2012 SCMR 1137).
5. The investigation is complete. The person of the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation. He is behind the bars since 17.03.2023 without any progress in the trial. Fair and speedy trial is one of the fundamental rights of petitioner. No moral or legal compulsion exists to keep the petitioner behind the -bars for an indefinite period, which would amount to punish without trial. Guidance is sought from Liaquat Hussain v. The State through Advocate-General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and another (2015 P.Cr.L.J. 1812).
6. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
(K.Q.B.) Petition accepted
0 Comments