PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore ) 382[Multan Bench Multan
NAZIR AHMAD and 3 others--Petitioners
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 4590-B of 2014, decided on 26.11.2014.
----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 452, 354, 148 & 149--Pre-arrest bail--Confirmed--Allegation of--Petition was armed with deadly weapons entered house of complainant--There was delay of two days in lodging of FIR which has not been explained--During course of investigation I.O. came to a definite conclusion that in-fact alleged place of occurrence belongs to accused party and on day of occurrence only some altercation took place between woman folk of parties and no occurrence as mentioned by complainant in his FIR took place, Both parties were related interse and pendency of civil litigation between them was not denied--Offences with which the, petitioners are charged do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. I.O. present before Court has frankly conceded that petitioners have already joined investigation which was complete against them--He has further conceded that custody of petitioners was not required by him--Petitioners were statedly to be previously non convict and there was no record against them--False implication of petitioners in instant case on account of malice cannot safely be ruled out--Matter to the extent of petitioner has become one of further inquiry--Bail was confirmed. [P. 383] A
Date of hearing: 26.11.2014.
Order
Petitioners Nazir Ahmad, Ghulam Shabbir, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Zafar seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 170/2014 dated 03.06.2014, u/S. 337-F(v)/337-A(i)/452/354/148/149, PPC registered at P.S.Saddar Muzaffargarh.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioners is that they while armed with deadly weapons entered the house of the complainant and inflicted injuries on the person of Muhammad Jamal/complainant and Mst. SakeenaBibi.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. There is delay of two days in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained. During the course of investigation the I.O. came to a definite conclusion that in-fact the alleged place of occurrence belongs to the accused party and on the day of occurrence only some altercation took place between the woman folk of the parties and no occurrence as mentioned by the complainant in his FIR took place, Both the parties are relatedinterse and the pendency of the civil litigation between them is not denied. The offences with which the, petitioners are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. I.O. present before the Court has frankly conceded that the petitioners have already joined the investigation which is complete against them. He has further conceded that the custody of the petitioners is not required by him. The petitioners
are statedly to be previously non convict and there is no record
against them. In view of the above backdrop false implication of the petitioners in the instant case on account of malice cannot safely be ruled out.
are statedly to be previously non convict and there is no record
against them. In view of the above backdrop false implication of the petitioners in the instant case on account of malice cannot safely be ruled out.
5. In view of the above, the matter to the extent of petitioners has become one of further inquiry. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 02.09.2014 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupee fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra are tentative in nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment