1988 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/452/148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Allegation against accused was that of ineffective firing and admittedly he did not injure anybody‑‑Co‑accused had been allowed bail by Trial Court almost under similar circumstances‑‑Fact that lather of accused produced gun, would have little importance inasmuch as admittedly nothing was recovered from accused himself‑‑Case being o: further inquiry, accused admitted to bail. Mian Ghulam Nabi v. Muhammad Shafiq and another 1979 SCMR 479 and Nazar Muhammad v. The State and 6 others 1960 PCr.LJ 1026 ref. Ch. Liaqat Ali Sindhu for Petitioner. M. Latif for the State. Date of hearing: 15th August, 1988. The petitioner, Tariq has moved this petition for bail after arrest under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. in a case registered against him under section 302/452/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Gujranwala vide F.I.R. No.161 dated 6‑3‑1987. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had made ineffective firing. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been declared as innocent by the Investigating Officer. He submitted that no recovery of weapon was made at the instance of the petitioner. No empty was recovered from the place of occurrence. He maintained that co‑accused Riaz was allowed bail. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that in the first instance the petitioner was admitted to bail on 8‑7‑1987 and the bail was later on cancelled on no cogent reasons. The learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. He maintained that there is sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The allegation against the petitioner is that of ineffective firing. Admittedly, the petitioner did not injure anybody in the case. The co‑accused Riaz has been allowed bail by the learned trial Court almost under the similar circumstances. The contention that the father of the petitioner produced the gun in the case has little importance inasmuch as admittedly nothing was recovered from the petitioner himself. In my view, this is a case of further inquiry. Reliance may be placed on Mian Ghulam Nabi v. Muhammad Shafiq and another 1979 S C M R 479 and Nazar Muhammad v. The State and 6 others 1980 P Cr. L J 1026. Accordingly the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees on lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C. , Gujranwala. H.B.T./T‑48/L. Bail granted.