MUHAMMAD NAEEM HASHMI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. The petitioner Muhammad Naeem Hashmi has moved this pre‑arrest bail petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C. in a case registered against him under Sections 307, 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad, vide F.I.R. No. 379 dated 18‑11‑1987.

2. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and that no overt act has been attributed to him in the commission of the crime. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with a pistol. Learned counsel states that even the allegation of shouting is not attributed to him. Mr. S.M. Zubair, the learned Additional Advocate‑General, has also been heard in the case. The Police Officer with record of the case is present. He has made a statement that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with a pistol. However, he stated that no injury is attributed to him. Mr. S.M. Zubair, the learned Additional Advocate‑General has categorically stated that there is no evidence so far collected by the Investigating Officer showing that the petitioner has inflicted any injury to the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been implicated in the case on account of mala rides on the part of the Investigating Officer. He has got nothing to do with the commission of the crime. Learned counsel placed on record an affidavit of Saghir Ahmad Chatha disclosing that on 18‑11‑1987 at 5.30 p.m. the petitioner was with him and that he was working for his election campaign. There is another affidavit sworn in by Ashiq Hussain Bhatti saying that on 18‑11‑1987 at 6 p.m. the petitioner was present in the election office of Saghir Ahmad Chatha.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have seen the record very carefully. The petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. Annexure `A'. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with a pistol and that he did not do any overt act. Even the allegation of shouting is not attributed to l the petitioner and on the contrary it is attributed to another co‑accused Mian Zubair. In my view this is a case of further enquiry and as such the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad.

3. M.Y.H./M‑631/L

4. Bail granted.