Pakistan Case Law← Search
2015 MLD 677

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL alias ALLAH DITTA vs The STATE and another

Citation2015 MLD 677
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No.1089-B of 2014
Date2014-04-08
Judge(s)Sikandar Zulqarnain Saleem
ResultApplication dismissed

ORDER

SIKANDAR ZULQARNAIN SALEEM, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Ismail alias Allah Ditta petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 559 dated 5-9-2011, registered under sections 302, 392, 411, P.P.C. At Police Station Seetal Marri District Multan at the instance of Abdul Jabbar complainant.

2. Prosecution version in brief as divulged in the FIR authored by Abdul Jabbar son of Muhammad Ali complainant is that three unknown persons riding on a Motorcycle CD-70 stopped near the shop of Babar Shahzad (deceased) maternal nephew of the complainant, out of whom two entered into his shop while one assailant remained outside the shop sitting on the motorcycle: The persons who entered into the shop looted an amount of Rs.45,000 motorcycle Honda CG/125 bearing Registration No. 8755/MNP, registration book, National Identity Card and a mobile phone belonging to Babar Shahzad (deceased) were also snatched. When the witnesses interfered, one unknown accused made fire with pistol 30 bore which hit on the left thigh of Babar Shahzad (deceased). Other unknown person made fire with carbine which hit on the backside of head and the pellets also hit left shoulder of Babar Shahzad deceased. After the occurrence, the accused persons succeeded in running away. Babar Shahzad (deceased) in injured condition was shifted to Nishtar Hospital, Multan through 1122 Service but, he succumbed to the injuries.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that admittedly it was night time occurrence and the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR; that no weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner and only registration book of motorcycle CO-125 has been recovered on the pointing out of the petitioner during his physical remand; that recovery of Rs. 5,000 has been foisted on the petitioner which was presented by his mother-in-law; that in fact the petitioner was arrested in case FIR No 229/2012 registered under section 395, P.P.C. At Police Station Basti Malook along with another accused; that on the disclosure of the co-accused the petitioner was arrested in the instant case on 23-4-2012 and was sent to judicial for identification parade; that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case.

4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application and maintained in unison that recovery of registration book has been effected from the petitioner; that he has been duly identified in the test of identification parade by the complainant and the eyewitness namely Habib Ahmad; that trial is in progress and the delay has been occasioned due to the accused; that the petitioner along with his co-accused is involved in as many as six cases of alike nature whereas his other companions are involved in 20 other cases; that there is no previous enmity between the parties; that the witnesses have alleged specific role to the petitioner during the occurrence.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. It is noted that the complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner as no ill will or enmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner along with the co- accused had committed robbery coupled with the murder. The complainant and the prosecution witnesses had properly taken up the petitioner during the test of identification parade with role of causing fatal injury to the deceased. Since trial has commenced, witnesses have been examined, the petitioner instead of pursuing the instant application for bail should monopolize his full attention towards the progress of his case before the learned trial Court as the witnesses have not been cross-examined. Further dilation on merits of the case is not warranted at bail stage, lest the observations made by this Court may not influence the trial Court one way or the other.

7. For what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner as he has not succeeded in making out a case for further inquiry. Hence, this bail application having no merits is hereby dismissed.

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search