Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
K.L.R. 1994 Criminal Case 236

NIAZ KHAN vs THE STATE

CitationK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Case 236
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Cr. M. No. 491-B of 1994
Date1994-02-08
Judge(s)Mian Nazir Akhtar
ResultN/A

ORDER

MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.- The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and two others namely Asif and Amer for offences u/Ss 302/324/34 PPC vide FIR No. 374 dated 16.9.1993 at Police Station Nishatabad, District Faisalabad.

2. According to the allegations made in the FIR, the parties had a dispute over the ownership and possession of certain shops and the Civil Court had decided the matter in favour erf Munir Khan deceased. The Faisalabad Development Authority had to take steps to deliver possession of the shops to the deceased. On the fateful day i.e. 16.9.93 at about 2.30 P.M, the complainant along with Munir Khan deceased and Nazir Ahmad son of Khurshid Ali went to the spot; Munir Khan deceased and Nazir Ahmad PW were having cold drinks in front of the shop of Mohammad Sharif Milk Seller while the complainant was sitting inside the shop. In the meanwhile, Niaz Khan petitioner empty handed, Asif son of Niaz Khan armed with 222 bore rifle and Amer son of Niaz Khan armed with pistol came there raising lalkaras. Niaz Khan petitioner allegedly raised a lalkara that Munir Khan (deceased) should not go alive as he wanted to obtain possession of the disputed shops, whereupon Asif co-accused fired three shots at the deceased causing injuries to the deceased on his abdomen, chest and the right shoulder. Asif co-accused again fired twice causing injuries to Nazir Ahmad PW. After receipt of the injuries, Munir Khan ran towards the Southern Lane and was fired at by Asif co-accused causing more injuries on his back and the legs. One i.e incidently hit Mst. Lubna aged 8/9 years who was present in the street. Mst. Lubna died on the spot whereas Munir Khan died in front of the house of Abdul Rehman Rehmani.

3. The petitioner's learned counsel submits that the prosecution has not come out with the whole truth. He submits that Asif co-accused was found to be injured and had one lacerated wound on the back of his head which was caused by a blunt weapon. According to him, this was indicative of some fight between the parties immediately before the incident erf firing and thereafter, raising of the alleged lalkara by the petitioner did not appear to be probable. He further submits that Suzuki motor cycle belonging to the deceased was taken into possession by the police (fi?Om point No.7 on the site plan). However, in the FIR it is not mentioned that the deceased had reached the spot on a motor cycle. He further submits that the complainant was sitting inside the shop and the accused were initially shown to have raised lalkara jointly. He could not make out as to whether the petitioner had raised any lalkara or not. He adds that the petitioner has been falsely roped in due to his relationship with the co-accused who are his sons. In support of his contention the places reliance on the case of Amanat Ali vs The State (1993 SCM R 1992). The learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is alleged to have raised a fatal lalkara as a result of which the deceased was killed.

4. Admittedly, the complainant was sitting inside the shop of Muhammad Sharif Milk Seller when the assailants came from the Western side jointly raising lalkaras. In such a situation, it was very difficult for him to make out as to who was shouting lalkara and what was being uttered by each assailant. Therefore, the question whether the petitioner at all raised the alleged lalkara requires further probe and inquiry, the possibility that he was implicated in the case due to his relationship with the co-accused cannot be altogether ruled out. At this stage, there do not appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed the offence alleged against him.

5. Therefore, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad. After acceptance of the bail/surety bonds, the Court concerned shall sent copies of the same to this Court for record.

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