SULEMAN QAMAR vs STATE and another

ORDER

' On the last date of hearing, i.e, 17.03.2016, learned counsel for the complainant raised objection that earlier petition filed by the petitioner for his post bail was withdrawn by him, therefore, instant petition is not maintainable. When confronted learned counsel for the petitioner sought time in order to satisfy this Court pertaining to maintainability of instant petition, therefore, instant case was adjourned for today.

2. Today learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the case law reported as Nazir Ahmed and another versus The State and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 241) before this Court, wherein it has been held by August Supreme Court of Pakistan that withdrawal simpliciter of an earlier application for bail before addressing or hearing of any argument on the merits of the case does not preclude filing of a subsequent application for the same relief before the same Court', therefore, objection raised by learned counsel for the complainant is over-ruled.

2-A. Suleman Qamar, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No, 900/2015 dated 01.07.2015 offences under Sections 302, 148, 149 & 109, PPC at Police Station Liaqat Abad District Lahore.

3. According to FIR, on 30.06.2015 at about 11:15 p.m. (night) Muhammad Akhtar complainant and his son Moeen Akhtar were proceeding to their house on car and when they reached near main Pepco Road Kot Lakpat Station, six unknown culprits who were on motor-cycles came over there. Two unknown culprits fired with' their respective pistols on Moeen Akhtar his son. Fire made by one culprit hit on right fore-arm of Moeen Akhtar which penetrated into his body. After receipt of injury, the car which was being driven by Moeen Akhtar became out of order. Moeen Akhtar was shifted to hospital where he succumbed to the injury. It was alleged in the FIR that occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Shafiq and Mustafa P.Ws and accused persons could be identified by the P.Ws if brought before them. Hence instant FIR was registered.

4. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and learned DPP, it has been noticed that petitioner was implicated in the instant case on the basis of alleged abetment of the petitioner with his co-accused for commission of murder of Moeen Akhtar deceased. On 02.07.2015 police recorded the statements of Safia Bibi and Altaf Hussian P.Ws under Section 161, Cr.P.C.

Pertaining to abetment of the petitioner. Perusal of their statements reveal that in March, 2015 father of Iram Naz (sister of petitioner) died, therefore, in April 2015 both the aforesaid P.Ws ( Safia Begum and Altaf Hussain) went to the house of Suleman Qamar (petitioner) and Shamad Qamar for condolence, where, Suleman Qamar petitioner, Shamad Qamar his brother, Zahida mother of Shoaib and Asmat wife of Suleman Qamar (petitioner) were sitting andirere talking with each other that they would manage murder of Moeen Akhtar and Iram Naz and for this purpose Shoaib would make arrangement and that such work can be done by making payments. According to the statements of both the P.Ws they tried to pacify them (petitioner and others) but they kept on talking angrily.

5. It has been noticed that according to statements of both the aforesaid P.Ws (Altaf Hussan and Sofia Begum) petitioner and other co-accused were talking for the commission of murder of deceased in April 2015 but they kept mum for the period of about three months and did not report the matter to police till the occurrence took place. Neither the allegation of abetment of the petitioner with his co-accused was levelled by the complainant in the FIR nor aforementioned witness were cited by the complainant in the FIR, therefore, veracity of statements of both the P.Ws (Altaf Hussain and Safia Begum) would be determined by learned trial Court at the time of trial.

6. It-has further been noticed that on 02.07.2015 statement of Iram Naz widow of Moeen Akhtar deceased, real sister of the petitioner was recorded by the police under Section 161, Cr.P.C., according to, which she contracted marriage with Moeen Akhtar deceased without consent of her parents, therefore, her brothers Suleman Qamar (petitioner), Shamad Qamar and her mother Zahida Bibi kept on extending threats to her and her husband Moeen Akhtar that they would arrange for murder of Moeen Akhtar, his father Akhat Ali and her (Iram Naz) by providing money to some one, Iram Naz sister of the petitioner did not lodge any FIR against the petitioner and others for extending threats to her and this fact was not incorporated by Muhammad Akhtar/complainant/ father of the deceased in the FIR.

7. Although during the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant referred to receipt issued by Daewoo Express which is available on record and contended that petitioner sent photograph of Moeen Akhtar deceased to Usman Hussain, main accused for commission of his (Moeen Akhtar) murder yet said receipt is silent that what material was transmitted by the petitioner to said Usman Hussain. No statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Is available on record in this regard. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 04.09.2015 and he is behind the bar for a period of about six months and 26-days and is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation.

8. For what has been discussed above, case of the petitioner comes within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.