MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus State

ORDER

IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J .---Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Riaz (petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.336 of 2005, dated 7-2-2005 registered under sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 427, 109, 148/149 at Police Station Sadar, District Sheikhupura, on the statement of Muhammad Imran, the complainant.

2. The brief facts as alleged in the FIR. are that on 7-5-2005 at about 1-30 p.m., the complainant' along with his brothers Sabir Hussain, Nasir and nephew Ali Raza was going on a Pajero Jeep bearing Registration No.329 towards their fields. They were in the way when all of 'a sudden, a car came there in which co-accused Umar Hayat alias Kaloo, Ilyas, Umar Usman, Yaqoob and petitioner Muhammad Riaz armed with their respective fire-arms were sitting and stopped their car in front of vehicle of the complainant party. They had come out of their car. Umar Usman co-accused fired at Sabir Hussain hitting on his face, while Umar Hayat also fired hitting on the chest of said Sabir, Hussain, Ilyas fired hitting Ali Raza on his neck and the other accused had also fired upon the complainant party. In the meanwhile Sabir Hussain also made firing with his licensee rifle in his self-defence at accused Umar Hayat, who also received injuries during the incident. The complainant also made firing in self-defence had accused and succeeded in running away. Sabir Hussain succumbed to the injuries at the spot, while Ali Raza, nephew of the complainant had been seriously injured. The wind screen of vehicle of the complainant party had been broken. The motive behind the occurrence was alleged that some time prior to this occurrence, brother of Umar Hayat namely Farooq was murdered and they suspected that Sabir Hussain, deceased had helped the accused in his murder.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that Muhammad Ilyas co-accused has been arrested and according to the order sheet attached with this petition, the challan is going to be submitted within a few days; that there is no likelihood in the conclusion of the trial in ten near future; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 24-5-2005 and no more required to the police for further investigation.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the challan has been submitted in the Court and charge was framed; that there is every likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in the near future as the case was fixed for prosecution witnesses.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.

6. In the earlier round of litigation, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 465-B of 2006 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 10-2-2006 with the following observations:--

"The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific role that he while armed with klashnikov had fired along with his co-accused. Yaqoob hitting on the leg of the deceased which injuries are borne out from the P.M. report and injury No. 9 has been declared sufficient to cause death in -ordinary course of nature. During the course of investigation, recovery of weapon has been effected from the petitioner and empties were also collected from the place of occurrence by the police, which had been sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and report is found positive. The case of present petitioner is distinguishable from the case-of co-accused Umar Usman. There is sufficient material against the petitioner prima facie to connect him with the commission appreciation of crime and he appears to be hardened and desperate criminal. The deeper merit of the case cannot be discussed at bail stage. The case falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section of 497, Cr.P.C.

In view of above discussion, this bail petition having no merits is dismissed."

The petitioner has filed this bail petition on the fresh ground of delay in disposal of the main case. It is admitted fact that delay in disposal of the main case is not attributed to the prosecution as the co-accused Muhammad Ilyas has been arrested later on, who was declared P.O. and fresh challan was to be submitted, which has now been submitted in the Court and the charge was also framed. The petitioner prima facie is connected with the commission of offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. No fresh ground is made out for the grant of bail. The instant application for bail after arrest of the petitioner is dismissed.

However, the learned trial Court is directed to ensure the conclusion of the trial within 6 months from the receipt of this order.

H.B.T./M-12/L Bail refused.