Muhammad Tanveer VS The State etc

Crl. Misc. No 80-B-2,0:14

Forrn No: HCJD/C-121.

QRDE_B lHEr[,

I

( D ICH COURT ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl. Misc. No.80-B/2O14

Muhammad Tanveer Vs.

The State & Another

5.No. of Date of Ordd with signature of Judge and that of order/ order/ parties or counsel where necessary" proceedings proceedings

26.O3.2014 Mr. lmran Feroze, Advocate for the per.itioner. Mr. Muhammad Fakhar Hayal Awarr. Advocate for complainant of FlR.

Mr. Muhammad jahangir Khan Jadoon. Standing Counsel with Abdul Sattar. 5l ,arith record.

Through the prerr:nt bail petitiorr. the petitioner seeks post arresl baii in conrrectic-ri.r witi' F!R No.4l daled 19.C2j|AB L!,/i 302,'3.1/lLl\) PPC registered at Police Stalron. Korai, ,.i:rnabarJ

2.As per facts niil'l'rtetl b',1 the crlnrp;ielinii:rr irr the above FlR. tlre pel.iti,rner aiong v',iirh other (.o- accused nameiy ltlran arrd -far:veer, arrnerl v,rri'l'r

Klashankove, came to tlre p!.rce of occurrcrlr-€ ;ri-r(l tried to str>p the corrrplainant party frc;n', raising ccrnst'r'uctron arrd upon resistance, all three acctrsecl wenl over lhe roof of the adiacent hol.lre ironr where, accused ln'rrar, rnade srraiglri l'ir'e, ."nrlrich landed on the back side c,f fhe chesl of orre Kh;:!id Farooq, wl-ro succumbed ir> injurir:s.

The petitiorrer filed petition i'or Dosi ;:rri:sf ail r,vhich was dismissed bv the iearrred /,..iditror:;li

Crl. Misc. No.80-8-2014

District & Sessions Judge, lslamabad (East), vide his order dated 16.01 .2014.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. His co-accused participated in the occurrence, due to his firing, the deceased died. No specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner and the recovery made from him is fake, which was planted upon the petitioner. His case needs further inquiry and probe into the guilt oi the petitioner meaning thereby that Section 497 (2) Cr.P.C. attracts in the present case. The prresent petitioner is behind the bar: stnce his arresi., investigation I5 complete and Challan har been furnished in the Court. lrr supF)ort o[ his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2t)l1

SCMR 902. 2012'/[.R 1309, 2013 YLR 1225 8.2A13

YLR 1433.

4.On the other hand, while enterirrg appearance, learned counsel f<tr the complainant has submitted power of attorney, rvhich has been taken on record. He has vehemently opposed this bail petition on the ground that petitioner is directly charged in the present FlR. He is equally i'esponsible for his act due to common intention with his co- accused lmran. He argued tl-rat petitic.ri-rer ts ,.t/s 302/34 PPC ^ volved in a heinous offence and

Crl Misc. No.80-B-2014

vicarious liability is arso upon him irr view cf application of Section 34 ppc. He furtlier arguerJ that elaborate sifti,g of evidence could rrot be made at the time of deciding bail application, but only tentative assessment of the same is to be made. He further argued that the present petitioner., due to his shared common intention to murder the cieceased, would be disentitled for grant of bail in murder case u/s 3O2 PPC. ln support of his contention. Ieai:ned counsel has relied upon 2OO4 SCMR lgB9, lggg p.

Cr. U 1&.2OO7 Cr.U 3BZ.

5.Learned Standing Counsel has mostly adoptecl the arguments as advanced by the reirrnerJ c.u.sel for the complainant. It is also allegeci that peririoner being an associate of i-nain accrrse<j i.3ntrol be allowed bail.

6.I have carefr-rlly hearcJ the argurnerils. perused the record and the material available has also lreen scanned as well as authorities referrerJ by both the sides.

7 " I am o{ the opinicin that inspite of lhe fact tlrat present petitioner has been si-rown available at the scene of incident duly armecr wirh Klasha'kove as argued by the prosecution, but yet, two irrciclents v,/ere narrated. Earlier, lrnran & Rasl-rid t.iecj tc> possess over the disputecl property ruherr threy

Crl. Misc. No.80-8-2014

obtained stay order from the court. Later on. the present petitioner was cited in the FIR ignoring the fact that present petitioner reached at the place of incident with Klashankove and restrained them from construction. Later on, lmran fired the burst from Klashankove, which hit Khalid Farooq on his left shoulder. who there-after succumbed to injuries.

8.ln the next episode, it is observed that throughout the allegations, no role l.ras been attributed to the present petitioner except his presence at the scene of incide^t. The petitiorrer neither alleged to have fired in the air nor he facilitated any of the co-accused. nor made an), Laikara or extended threats of any kirrd. 'lherefore.

mere presence of the present petiticlne' at the scene of incident creates doubt abour vicarious riability. Ultimately, his role will have to be deter"rnirreci during trial after recording of evicrerrcr: ancr the material available on recorcl. s.rch role a*signerj ro the present petitione. creates a reaso'labre doubt about his participation in the commission of instant .offence.

9.Therefore, in rnv hunrble view, the petitioner carrnot be detained further merely on the basis of such role assigned io him, which in view of prosecution story ii a vicar.ious liability.

Crl. Misc. No.80-B-2014

10.Allegedly, recovered Klashankove was not found loaded with bullets, which too. creates doubt about the involvement of the petitioner in the present case.

11.Since it is a matter, which require further probe into the guilt of the present petitioner, therefore, in my humble view, the petitioner deserves for grant of bail.

12.Moreover. co-accused namely Sajid l-"lussairr Shah has already been granted L-,ail by thris Ccurt vide order dated 09.12.2013 passed in Crl. Misc.

No.685-B -2013.

13.For what has treen cliscussetJ abr:ve, i'sta,t bail petition is allowed" Consequently. the petitioner is ordered io be enlarger:' on bail, sr_r'oject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00.000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) with one surety in rire like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial cot:rt.

14.Since the above observations are tentative in nature therefore learned trial couri needs not to be influenced by the same.

(N o N. QURESHI)

JUDGE

lmran

Uploaded By : Engr. Umer Rasheed Dar