ABAID-UR-REHMAN Versus STATE
ORDER
1. This is an application for grant of bail to Manzoor Ahmad petitioner in a case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Mustafabad vide F.I.R. No. 122 dated 25‑9‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 4 others, in furtherance of their common object launched murderous assault and thereby committed double murder of Azhar Javed and Wajahit and. fire‑arm wounds to Asad Ullah Khan P.W.
2. As for the petitioner, it has been alleged that he was armed with a gun and had fired shot causing simple injury on the hand of Azhar Javed deceased.
3. The earlier application for grant of bail to the petitioner was dismissed by me on 14‑12‑1987. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the rejection of the plea for bail of the petitioner, fresh ground has arisen in due course of event, which may entitle him to the concession of bail, inasmuch as, in the investigation conducted by Syed Manzar Ali Shah, D.S.P. City Circle Kasur, the petitioner was found innocent and his name has by now been placed in column No.2 of the challan. Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states on the application of the accused to the Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, the investigation was ultimately entrusted to D.S.P. Kasur, who after investigation, had declared the petitioner to be innocent. The learned counsel further stated that on the direction of D.S.P., Kasur the name of the petitioner has been placed in column No.2 of the Challan:
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that after the rejection of the earlier application of the petitioner on 14‑12‑1987, the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore had directed the D.S.P. Kasur, to investigate the case. Syed Manzar Ali Shah D.S.P. Kasur, recorded the statements of a number of witnesses during re‑investigation. He recorded the statements of sixteen persons. On the basis of the statements of Abdul Hameed Khan and 15 others, he declared Manzoor Ahmad to be innocent. He directed the S.H.O. Mustafabad to place his name in column No.2 of the challan. The S.H'O. then prepared report placing name ‑of the petitioner in column No.2 of the final challan. Since the petitioner has been found innocent during the investigation and the opinion of police is based on the mater collected by it and the name of the petitioner has also been placed in column Not of the challan so it can safely be said that there are no reasonable grounds within the meaning of section 497, Cr.P.C. to believe that he has committed the alleged offence.
3. For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Kasur.
4. S.A./M‑1222/L Bail granted.
6. [Lahore]
7. Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
8. NASER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner versus
9. THE STATE‑‑Respondent
10. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4003/B of 1988, decided on 17th December, 1988.
11. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
12. ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.307 & 436‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Occurrence at dead of night‑‑Accused seen running away from house of complainant‑‑No explanation given for presence of accused at spot‑‑Accused over 16 years of age‑ Challan submitted in Court and case ripe for trial‑‑Bail refused in circumstances.
13. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chauhan and T.S. Gill for Petitioner.
14. Abdus Samad Hashmi for the State.
ORDER
15. A case under section 436/307, P.P.C. stands registered against the petitioner with Police Station Mustafabad, Lahore, vide F.I.R. dated 6‑10‑1988. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Mst. Salma Sultana, are that she was sleeping in her room. On sensing fire and feeling hot she woke up and saw that the room had caught fire. She at once came out and started shouting for help whereupon her sister and grandmother as well as her neighbours came there and put off the fire. In the meanwhile, the witnesses saw that the petitioner was running away from the roof of her house.
16. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a minor. Submits that there is no evidence whatsoever to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Contends that the‑ injuries received by the first informant are superficial in nature which entitles the petitioner to the concession of bail and the challan in the case has not yet been submitted. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner
2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. The occurrence took place at 2‑45 at night on 6‑10‑1988. The first informant as well as the witnesses saw the petitioner running away from the house of the first informant. No explanation has been given by learned counsel for the petitioner as to what he was doing at that dark hours of the night in the house of the first informant. According to the school leaving certificate the age of the petitioner is more than 16 years. I am informed that the challan in the case has already been submitted in Court and the case is ripe for trial. The contentions of learned counsel that there are only superficial injuries on the person of the first informant are without force because the injuries have been caused by burning.
17. Since the challan has already been submitted in Court and the case is ripe for trial, therefore, I feel that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Resultantly, the petition fails which is accordingly dismissed.
18. SA./N‑215/L Bail refused.