INTIZAR HUSSAIN vs State S — 2022 MLD 103 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

INTIZAR HUSSAIN VS State S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 (b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused made firing, due to which brother of the complainant died---Accused was allegedly armed with .30 bore pistol and he resorted to firing---Though, no firearm injuries had been attributed to the accused rather it was the case where only accused's presence was referred at the place of murder of deceased at the hands of co-accused---Investigation of the case revealed that father of the accused had been declared innocent after thorough probe and inquiry due to his non presence at the place of occurrence on the basis of CCTV footage record of the Deputy Commissioner Office, as well as Call Data Record, which created ground of further inquiry in the entire case---Forensic reports also revealed that only three crime cartridges had been matched with the recovered pistol, whereas remaining cartridges of .30 bore pistol had been fired through some other pistol---Such aspect demonstrated that more than two pistols of .30 bore were used---Though, the investigation was silent to that extent, therefore, the present case fell within the ambit of further inquiry in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P.C---Prima facie, admitted position on record that the accused had not caused any injury to the deceased or witness---Vicarious liability of alleged occurrence would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was of generalized nature---Accused was previously non-convict and had never been involved in any other case---Accused was behind the bars since 18.03.2021 without any progress and conclusion of the trial---Investigation of the case had been completed and accused-petitioner was no more required for further investigation---Further incarceration of the accused would not serve any useful purpose---Mere heinousness of offence was no ground to refuse the bail to accused, who had become entitled for concession of bail in terms of further inquiry---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

INTIZAR HUSSAIN vs State S — 2022 MLD 103 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD