Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 584, 671 and 690‑B of 1985, decided on 17th April, 1985.

---S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 120‑B‑‑Bail grant of‑‑Fact that petitioners were party to criminal conspiracy to commit murder of deceased, mentioned in F.I.R. and supported by two prosecution witnesses‑‑Credibility of witnesses and probability or improbability of version given by such witnesses, held, a matter of deeper appreciation of evidence and as such neither permissible nor desirable in bail matter‑‑Petitioners declined bail, in circumstances.

Shahid Hussain for Petitioners.

Farooq Haider A.‑A.G. with M. Salim Shad for the State.

These three Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 584, 671 and 690‑B of 1985' are applications for bail by Mian Mehraj Din, Mian Fazal Ahmad and Mian Manzoor Ahmad, in case under section 302/149/109 and 120‑B, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Ichhra vide F.I..R. No. 2/85 dated 4‑1‑1985. I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.

2. The prosecution case is that on 4‑1‑1985 Noor Ahmad alias Noora and four others, opened attack on Sh. Muhammad Asghar and three others while they were in a car, near G.O.R. III Estate, Lahore and murdered them by firing shots on them. As for the three petitioners, it has been alleged that they alongwith Mian Abdul Kabir co‑accused, were party to a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Sh. Muhammad Asghar and others and that they had abetted Noor Ahmad alias Noora and four others, the assailants, by instigating them to do away with Sh. Muhammad Asghar and others.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the case of the petitioners is at par with that of Mian Abdul Kabir who having been released on bail, there was no legal justification for the Additional Sessions Judge, to refuse bail to the petitioners; that the three witnesses of the alleged conspiracy and abetment namely, Maqsood Ahmad, Maulvi Abdul Wahid and Sarwar Javed are not reliable witnesses; that Maqsood Ahmad in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. has stated that he was informed of the conspiracy by Sarwar Javed and Maulvi Abdul Wahid P. Ws. that the names of Maulvi Abdul Wahid and Sarwar Javed P. Ws. are not mentioned in the F.I. R. , that the statements given by Maulvi Abdul Wahid and Sarwar Javed are highly improbable inasmuch as it runs counter to the natural probabilites that the petitioners would have instigated Noor Ahmad alias Noora and others co‑accused to murder Sh. Muhammad Asghar and others in the presence of these two witnesses who belong to the party of Sh. Muhammad Asghar deceased. The learned counsel has not pressed the ground of old age and infirmity of Mian Mehraj Din. Conversely the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the plea for the ball of the petitioners.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties carefully. I find that during the investigation the Police has collected evidence furnished by Maulvi Abdul Wahid and Sarwar Javed P.Ws. to the effect that the three petitioners were party to criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Sh. Muhammad Asghar and others; that the allegations that the petitioners were party to criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased are mentioned in the F.I.R. that the case of Miah Abdul Kabir is quite distinguishable inasmuch as the plea of alibi raised by him, finds support from the oral as well as reliable documentary evidence collected by the Police during the investigation; that the submission made by the learned counsel relatable to the credibility of Maqsood Ahmad and Maulvi Abdul Wahid P.Ws. and the probability /improbability of the version given by these witnesses, requires deeper appreciation which is neither permissible nor desirable is bail matters; that the arguments addressed by the learned counsel in this behalf travel beyond the scope of tentative assessment and that the alleged offences fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C.

5. For what has been said above, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. The applications are therefore, dismissed.

S. G. D. Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.