2020 Y L R 1919
[Balochistan (Sibi Bench)]
Before Abdul Hameed Baloch, J
GUL HASSAN---Applicant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.(s) 170 of 2019, decided on 29th October, 2019.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl -i-amd, abetment, common
intention--- Bail, refusal of ---Scope ---Accused along with others was alleged to have
murdered the brother of complainant ---Accused was nominated in the promptly lodged FIR --
-Weapon was recovered on the pointation of accused ---Medical evidence had, prima facie,
supported the allegation leveled against the accused--- Petition for grant of bail was
dismissed, in circumstances.
Perveen Akhtar v. State 2002 SCMR 1886 rel.
Ahsan Rafiq Rana for Applicant.
Abdul Mateen, D.P.G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 25th October, 2019.
ORDER
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. ---Through this application the applicant Gul Hassan
son of Muhammad Bakhsh seeks bail in FIR No.61 of 2019 lodged with Police Station City
Dera Murad Jamali, District Naseerabad under Sections 302, 109, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C.").
Earlier the bail application filed by the applicant before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Naseerabad at Dera Murad Jamali ( "trial court"), was rejected vide order dated 16th
October, 2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are that ON 28.05.2019 at about 10:50 a.m. the complainant
namely Inayatullah lodged the referred FIR, alleging therein that on the stated date at about 10:20 a.m. he, his brother and relatives on account of personal work were present at Shah
Pump situated at Dera Murad Jamali. In the meanwhile, the applicant along with absconding
accused persons armed with TT pistols came there, and aimed pistol at his brother with
slogan that they will not leave him alive today and started indiscriminate firing. Resultantly
his brother received bullet injuries and succumbed at the spot.
The compliant further stated that the motive behind the incident is previous enmity
and the accused committed murder of his brother on the instigation of Amir Bakhsh and Irfan.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned DPG and have gone
through the record with their able assistance. The perusal whereof reveals that the FIR has been lodged with promptitude. The applicant has been nominated in the FIR. Recovery of
weapon has been effected on the pointation of the applicant. The eye -witnesses fully
implicated the accused in the commission of offence. Medical evidence prima- facie
supported the allegation levelled against the accused in the FIR. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that "no specific role has been ascribed to the applicant and case of the applicant falls within the purview of further inquiry as enumer ated under Section
497(2), Cr.P.C." has no force. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on the case of Perveen Akhtar v. State 2002 SCMR 1886 held as under:
"Undoubtedly, in such- like cases, it is said that accused has made out a case of fu rther
inquiry. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Asmatullah Khan v. Bazi Khan and another (PLD 1988 SC 621) merely for such reason accused would not be entitled for grant of bail because mere possibility of further inquiry which exi sts
almost in every criminal case, is no ground for treating the matter as one under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Thus, in view of above, the Criminal Bail Application No(s). 170 of 2019 is
dismissed.
Needless to mention here that the observation made hereinabove are meant for
disposal of the instant application alone, which shall have no bearing on merits of the case.
SA/157/Bal. Bail refused.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.