2010 PLP 804 (MLD)
AYAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 804 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AYAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 804 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 804 (MLD)?
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: 2010 PLP 804 (MLD) (AYAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed A Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Raziq Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/34/337-F(iii)
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd
Accused was directly charged for effectively firing on the complainant
Medico-legal Report had further supported the version of the complainant and the recoveries of empties were also made from the spot
Trial of the case was also in progress
Involvement of accused in the commission of offence was, prima facie, established, punishment provided for which fell under the Prohibitory Clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused being not entitled to the concession of the bail, his bail petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.
Through the instant bail petition, the accused/petitioner seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No. 117, dated 28-5-2009 registered under sections 324/34/337-F (iii), PPC Police Station, Dargai whereby he was charged by one Nadir Khan son of Fazal Qadar resident of Wartir Tehsil Dargai District Malakand for effectively firing on this person with the intention to commit his Qatl-e-amd. Resultantly, he was hit on left hand and on left foot, whereas motive for the offence was the previous enmity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant were heard and record of the case was perused which reveals that the petitioner is directly charged for effectively firing on complainant. The Medico-legal Report further supports the version of the complainant and the recoveries of empties were also made from the spot. The trial of the case is also in progress, so without commenting upon the material available on record. The involvement of the accused/petitioner in the commission of offence is prima facie established, punishment provided for which falls under the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. , so he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months failing which the accused/petitioner will be at liberty to move afresh for his release on bail. H.B.T./94/P Bail refused.