Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
K.L.R. 2014 Criminal Cases 15

Rafaqat Ali vs The State and another

CitationK.L.R. 2014 Criminal Cases 15
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Crl. Misc. No,. 9605-B of 2013
Date2013-08-19
Judge(s)Ali Baqar Najafi
ResultBail after arrest granted

ORDER

' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this petition, Rafaqat Ali petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No,. 239, dated 26.3.2013 registered at Police Station Sadar District Kasur for offences under section 302/109/148/149, PPC.

2. As per FIR, the allegations against the petitioner are that he while armed with 30 bore pistol alongwith unknown persons riding on the motor bike has made firing in the brother of the complainant namely, Basharat Ali whereas the other co-accc.Isec is were also armed with pistols.

They too, while riding upon the motor bikes fired on the deceased. MC motive behind the occurrence is a previous enmity.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and was admitted in the hospital w,e,f, 18.3.2013 to 27.3.2013 which fact was verified by the police vide diary No,. 28, dated 28.5.2013; that in the first investioatior petitioner was found guilty only in the offence under section 109 PPC; hCt even of conspiracy is not attributea to the petitioner; that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner; that allegation against the petitioner and others is of general firing; that previous enmity is with respect to FIR No,. 540, dated 27.12.2012 lodged under section 302/148/149, PPC, by Muhammad Asif Imran brother of the petitioner for the murder of his father Muhammad Sadiq and brother Mazhar Ali; that Challan has been submitted on 16.07.2013 to the extent of offence under section 109, PPC against the petitioner and that he is no more required for further investigation.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR and the eye-witnesses fully supported the prosecution case; that the petitioner has in fact, participated in the occurrence resulting into multiple injuries to the deceased caused by fire-arm weapons; that plea of alibi has been verified from the official record and for that purpose an application has already been filed before the Secretary Health which is still pending; that no second investigation was conducted; that the motive part is attributed to the petitioner; that the offences fall within the prohibitory clause. Places reliance on case of Ghulam Ahmad Chishti vs. The State and another (2013 SCM R 385).

5. Learned Addl. Prosecutor General adds that the deceased sustained six injuries; that the petitioner was initially admitted in the hospital but when the occurrence was planned for a later time; that cell phone data squarely connects the petitioner with the commission of crime; that he has played active role of hatching conspiracy which falls within the ambit of section 109, PPC; that the FIR was registered in the year 2012 but before the occurrence the complainant was involved on the basis of supplementary statement hence, prays for dismissal of this bail petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.

7. Although the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR but only allegation of general firing is attributed to the petitioner. No, recovery of pistol effected from the possession of the petitioner.

Vide case diary No,. 28, dated 28.5.2013 section 109, PPC was added in the Challan so submitted.

The findings of the police is not binding upon the Court but where opinion is expressed on the basis of cogent and sound reasons the Court cannot brush it aside. In the dictum laid down in Ghulam Ahmad Chishti's case (supra) the sole ground of alibi was taken which was found not convincing.

Further the record does not reflect any witnesses in whose presence the conspiracy was hatched.

At present, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub- section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

8. In view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Bail after arrest granted.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch