2016 SCMR 1401

2016 S C M R 1401

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Amir Hani Muslim and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ

MUHAMMAD IMRAN—Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and others—Respondents

Criminal Petition No. 1391-L of 2015, decided on 26th January, 2016.

(On appeal against the judgment dated 2-11-2015 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 6099/B of 2015)

(a) Precedent—

—-Criminal cases—Citations referred to by counsel—Citations referred to in a criminal case were of no help, as (criminal) cases were decided on their own facts.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—-S. 497—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148, 149 & 34—Double murder case—Bail, refusal of—Accused had been nominated with a specific role in the FIRs and recovery had been effected from him—Specific motive had also been attributed to the accused—Police had found the accused guilty during investigation and in both the FIRs the accused had been implicated—Sufficient material was available on record to deny him bail—Bail was refused accordingly.

Naveed Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Aftab Hussain Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.

Abdul Majeed Rana, Additional P.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 26th January, 2016.

JUDGMENT

AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.—The Petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No.55/2014 dated 28.02.2014 under sections 302, 148 and 149/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Ahmed Pur Sial, District Jhang.

  1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Petitioner has been wrongly denied bail after arrest by the learned High Court and the trial Court in a case of counter version. He next contended that the co-accused who alleged to have inflicted injuries on the deceased have been granted bail by the trial Court/High Court whereas the Petitioner was declined bail whose role was also identical to that of those co-accused. He further contended that the Courts have denied bail against the established principles of law enunciated in the cases of Malik Javid Iqbal v. The State (PLD 2015 SC 250), Mst. Maria Khan v. The State (2015 SCMR 49), Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique (PLD 1989 SC 585) and Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar Ul Haq (1996 SCMR 1845).
  2. As against this, the learned Counsel representing the complainant has contended that the Petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role and it was a case of two murders. He next contended that an attempt has been made to confuse the issue. He submits that first FIR No.55 of 2014 was lodged at 3:40 and the time for the offence was shown as 1-1/2 p.m whereas the second FIR No.56 of 2014 was lodged at 7:40 and the time for the offence was 2-1/2. In both the FIRs, the Petitioner has been nominated with specific role and the other co-accused who have been granted bail were exonerated by the Police under section 169, Cr.P.C., as they were found innocent during investigation whereas the Petitioner was found guilty, therefore, the case of the Petitioner is not at par with the case of the co-accused who were granted bail. He further submits that the Petitioner is a hardened criminal and a number of cases are pending against him.
  3. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has supported the impugned judgment and states that the Petitioner has been accused in both the criminal cases and was found guilty by the police during investigation as well.

5.  We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties besides the learned Law Officer. The citations referred in a criminal case is of no help, as cases are decided on their own facts, therefore, the judgments referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are distinguishable on facts of the present case. We have noticed that the Petitioner has been nominated with specific role and recovery has been effected from him besides the motive which has been attributed to him. The Police has found him guilty during investigation and in both the FIRs the Petitioner has been implicated. There is no case of counter version as argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We have scanned the material with the assistance of the learned Counsel and do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the High Court or of the trial Court which could warrant interference by this Court. The direct complaint filed has no bearing on the case of the Petitioner against whom there is sufficient material to deny him bail.

  1. For the aforesaid reasons, this Petition is dismissed and leave refused. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

MWA/M-40/SC Bail refused.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *