2000 P Cr (PLP)
MEHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MEHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (MEHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Barkandi, for Petitioner. Assadullah Murwat, A.A.-G. for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Effect
Fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondence disentitles the absconder to the concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case.
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/34
Ball, grant of -- Abscondence
Effect
Vicarious liability, principle of
Applicability-- Simultaneous firing of the accused alongwith other co-accused reflected common intention in the commission of crime
Principle of vicarious liability was applicable
Direct charge supported by eye-witnesses coupled with noticeable long abscondence sufficiently provided reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was guilty of offence falling with the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Bail was refused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.
Accused-petitioner Mehtar facing prosecution in case F.I.R. No.439, dated 27-9-1994 under section 302/307/34, P.P.C., Police Station Kabal, Sawat was refused bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Izzafi Zilla Qazi-II, Swat vide his order, dated 5-11-1998. Now he has approached this Court for the same relief.
2. According to the F.I.R., Saeed-ud-Din complainant alongwith his father, cousin Afzal Shah and Muhammad Saleh after attending a post-marriage function at Kabal, returned by Bus on 27-9-1994. At afternoon they reached Adda Dardiyal, when they were alighting they saw accused Mehtar and Asghar Khan sitting in the shop of the Matai who started firing on them. The complainant was hit with the fire shot of the accused-petitioner while Afzal Shah sustained injuries with the firing of co-accused Asghar Khan. One Luqman Hakeem a passerby was also injured with the fireshots of the accused. Motive is stated to be blood feud enmity between the parties.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case with their assistance.
4. In this case occurrence took place in the year 1994, and the accused petitioner remained fugitive from law for 4/5 years. It is a settled law that fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondance disentitles the absconder to the 'concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case. Moreover, simultaneous firing of the accused reflect their common intention in the commission of the crime and prima facie the principle of vicarious liability is applicable to the circumstances of the case. Reference can be made to 1996 SCMR 1023.
5. In view of the direct charge supported by the eye-witnesses couple with noticeable long abscondance sufficiently provide reasonable grounds to believe that the accused-petitioner is guilty of offence charged with which fall; within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. hence he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, this bail application is rejected. Q.M.H./M.A.K./454/P Bail refused