Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2001 YLR 2594

ABDUL MAJID and anothers vs THE STATE

Citation2001 YLR 2594
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No,1773-B of 2001
Date2001-08-15
Judge(s)Muhammad Farrukh Mehmood
ResultBail granted

ORDER

' Abdul Majeed son of Abdul Ghaffar and Umar Farooq son of Abdul Rehman, petitioners, have sought their post-arrest bail in a case F.1.R. No,389 of 2000 registered on 24-12-2000 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station City Alipur, District Muzaffargarh.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing this case at some length does not press this petition to the extent of Abdul Majeed, petitioner No,1, for the time being, which stands dismissed to his extent.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that while Muhammad Tayyab complainant alongwith his brother Muhammad Tahir was travelling in a car and when they reached near Kazmi Hospital, Alipur, the petitioner alongwith four other same in front of the car, and therefore, Muhammad Shahid who was driving the car stopped it. According to the F.I.R., within the view of the P.Ws. Abdul Salam alias Babu co-accused, who was armed with .12 bore pistol, fired at Muhammad Tahir, who was injured and was rushed to the Hospital. However, the shot fired proved fatal and Muhammad Tahir brother of the complainant died. The role attributed to the petitioner is that when the complainant was rushing towards Hospital, he alongwith other co- accused fired ineffectively.

4 The motive as given in the F.I.R. Was that Muhammad Tahir deceased had married with the daughter of Abdul Majeed, co-accused, but the marriage did not work and the wife of the deceased was living with her father Abdul Majeed and case was also pending in the Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that no motive has been alleged against the petitioner Umar Farooq. The petitioner also has not caused any injury to the deceased or the P.Ws. The only allegation against him is that of ineffective firing but no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence. Allegedly the petitioner led to the recovery of 30 bore pistol but in the circumstances that cannot be used as incriminating evidence against the petitioner. Resultantly, the allegation levelled against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, admit Umar Farooq, petitioner, to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs,onc lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge .

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