| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3494 2025 SLD 3494 = 2025 MLD 692 |
Crl. Misc. No. 43092-B of 2024, decided on 24th October, 2024.
Before Farooq Haider, J
Aftab Hussain Bhatti for Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. 43092-B of 2024). Naeem Ijaz Insari for Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. 62505-B of 2024). Nisar Ahmad Virk, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State along with Khizar, S.I. and record of the case for the State. Ch. Muhammad Atif Saeed for the Complainant.
ZULQARNAIN---Petitioner
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302,34
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497,498,497(2)
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1860)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the accused-petitioners was that they committed murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that one of the petitioners was neither equipped with any weapon nor caused any injury to deceased or anybody else in the case rather he was present at the place of occurrence empty handed and did not perform any role in the occurrence---Since no empty of .9mm pistol was found at the spot and no report regarding matching of any empty of .30bore pistol secured from the spot with pistol allegedly recovered from petitioner was available on record as apprised by prosecution, therefore, evidentiary value of recovery of pistol .9mm from coaccused and pistol .30-bore from petitioner would be determined during trial---Supplementary statement of complainant also required evidential verification during trial---Moreover, co-accused had already been granted post arrest bail in the case, which order was still in field and had neither been challenged by the prosecution nor by the State--- When all said factors were taken into consideration in totality, then question of sharing common intention as well as vicarious liability to the extent of present petitioners would be seen during trial of the case---Case of prosecution, at present, against both petitioners required further probe/inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.--Both petitioners were arrested in the case on 12.04.2024, sent to jail on 25.04.2024 where they were confined till now---Mere detention of the petitioners in lock-up, in such circumstances, would serve no useful purpose to the case of prosecution---Bail could not be withheld as advance punishment--Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---