MUHAMMAD IKRAM Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Ikram and Abdul Ghaffar petitioner alongwith 2 others stand charged with the murder of Ijaz Hussain deceased.

2. The prosecution case is that on 27-3-1992 Muhammad Ikram came to the shop of Ijaz Hussain deceased and asked him to accompany him for buying a motor-cycle. The deceased accompanied him after taking an amount of Rs.17,000 with him. The deceased did not return to his hose. On search, his dead body was found near Railway crossing. The matter was reported to the police raising suspicion against Muhammad Ikram petitioner. During investigation Abdul Ghaffar petitioner was also arrested on the allegation that he had tried to destroy the evidence by throwing the motor-cycle of the deceased into the canal. On 13-9-1992 the motor-cycle was recovered from the canal.

3. Bail is sought on the grounds that Muhammad Ikram petitioner is a minor having born on 24-11-1978. Abdul Ghaffar pleads for bail on the grounds that his name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and further that the motor-cycle in question was not recovered at his instance nor did anybody claim to have seen him throwing the motor-cycle into the canal.

4. Learned counsel for the State and complainant have opposed the grant of bail. According to them since the trial has commenced any observation by this Court might have some adverse bearing on the trial.

5. Since Muhammad Ikram petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the deceased was last seen with him, I do not consider him entitled to bail at this stage and dismiss his application. However, the case of Abdul Ghaffar petitioner appears to be distinguishable because the main allegation against him is of causing the disappearance of evidence. It is punishable with seven years' imprisonment and as such does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Accordingly he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

Needless to say that none of the observations made above would influence the mind of the learned trial Court while disposing of the case on merits.

AA./M-628/L Order accordingly.