MIR ALAM Versus State

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J. ---Since Criminal Misc. Nos.27/2019 and 28/2018 are arising out of one and the same matter, therefore, these are being disposed of through this single judgment.

Criminal Misc. No. 27/2019 Mir Alam v. The State

2. The allegation against the petitioner as revealed during investigation are that he paid and advance amount of Rs.10,000/- for murder of deceased Rahimullah. The petitioner is charged for abetment of the offence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is charged for abetment of the offence and the amount paid to the main accused Syed Akbar has not been recovered from the principal accused during investigation. The so called extra judicial confession is devoid of any legal force. There is no worth reliance evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The statements of the witnesses have been recorded 4/5 days after recovery of dead body, which are not admissible in evidence.

Criminal Misc. No.28/2019 Sher Afzal v. The State

4. As stated above the murder of one Rehimullah was committed by one of the accused Syed Akbar. The petitioner is also charged for abetment of the offence.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner/accused nor his name finds mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner/accused is charged under sections 201/202, P.P.C., which offences are bailable. The case is one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling him for concession of bail.

6. The murder of Rehimullah was committed by one Syed Akbar in active connivance of the above petitioners/accused. The record of the case scanned with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The time/place of occurrence is not denied rather admitted. The deceased was murdered in a very brutal manner and with the active connivance of the petitioner/accused. The offence under section 109 also entails the same punishment as provided for the main offence. There exists a prima facie case against both the accused. The bail petitions of both the petitioners/accused are declined accordingly.

MQ/5/GB Bail refused.