1998 PLP 1020 (MLD)
THE STATE — Petitioner Versus SHAHZAD WALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1020 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THE STATE — Petitioner Versus SHAHZAD WALI and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1020 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1020 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1020 (MLD) (THE STATE — Petitioner Versus SHAHZAD WALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Haq Nawaz for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/307/34 & 392-- Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13
All the three accused who were adult had committed decoity on the Highway by killing one person and injuring other by firing at them with their automatic weapons
Section 302/324/307, P.P.C. no doubt were compoundable and legal heirs of deceased having compromised by receiving amount from accused party, order granting bail was valid up to that extent
Dacoity having been committed on the Highway by accused who were adult and during course of which they had committed murder, their case also fell under S. 392, P.P.C. and S. 17(4) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, punishable with death which fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. and was not compoundable
Accused, in circumstances, were not entitled to grant of bail
Order passed by Trial Court granting bail to accused was recalled and accused, who were released on bail, were directed to be taken into custody.
Judgment & Decree
1. This single Order will dispose of the abovementioned two applications for cancellation of bail, as both of them arise out of one and the same F.I.R.
2. According to the report lodged by Rashid Iqbal son of Mir Zaman, resident of Kumar Bandi, Tehisl and District Abbottabad, the prosecution story runs thus:-- That the maker of the report on 15-10-1996 at 12-10 p.m. went to the Police Station Gilgit and lodged a report before Station House Officer to the effect that he is a cleaner of Truck No. GITA-2937 and while Abdul Sattar resident of Abbottabad was the driver of the Truck in question; that on 14-10-1996 at Sost situate within the limits of Hunza, one Javed resident of Bonji engaged their truck from Sost to Gilgit for Rs. 5,500 and his goods were loaded in the truck and at about 5 p.m. after loading the goods, they started for Gilgit and at about 9 p.m. when they crossed the Check Post at Ganish, a car of black colour which had a revolving light on its roof, over took the truck and proceeded ahead, while the Driver Abdul Sattar stopped the truck at Petrol Pump Allahbad, in order to fill the diesel in the truck and thereafter they proceeded towards Gilgit; that at about 12.30 a.m. when they covered a distance of 13 k.m. ahead of Sikandarabad towards Gilgit, the aforesaid car once again came from behind and crossed the truck and after covering a little distance, the car was stopped on the road in a slanting position and the revolving light on the roof of the car was on; that the driver and the cleaner took it to be a police car and therefore stopped the truck; that from the said car some unknown persons who were armed with automatic weapons started firing, as a result of which Abdul Sattar driver received bullet injuries on his head and chest, while the cleaner also sustained fire-arm injuries on his arm
10. The plea taken by the appellant that Naveed Ikram, S.I./S.H.O. had become inimical against him as he had objected to the release of some Mithu Qasai after charging bribe is neither here nor there, because neither any P.W. have lend support to this plea nor had he produced any evidence in defence to prove that.
11. The appellant was a serving constable and was posted at the Police Station Baghdad-ul-Jadeed. The S.H.O. and the other police official posted at the police station could not have gone to the extent of fabricating a false case against him. Although it is not on the record but it can be safely assumed that the recovery of narcotic at the instance of a police official from within the premises of the police station must not have gone unnoticed by the superior police officers i.e. circle officer or even Superintendent of Police of the District. That being so, they would not have allowed the Sub-Inspector to commit such an excess.
12. For all the reasons noted above there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. Vide Notification in the Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary) dated Monday April, 1996 whipping has been abolished excepting the cases of Hadd. the sentence of infliction of two stripes is, therefore, deleted. N.H.Q./1133/FSC Appeal dismissed.