2021 PLP 1541 (MLD)
ALAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1541 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1541 (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 2021 PLP 1541 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1541 (MLD) (ALAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Javed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Qatl-i-amd
Scope
Accused sought post-arrest bail in FIR registered under S.302, P.P.C
Although the incident was unseen yet the accused was nominated by the complainant on the basis of statements made by two persons who had seen the deceased with the accused on the date of occurrence
Police had recorded statements of two witnesses who had stated that the accused had admitted his guilt before them
Pistol was recovered from the possession of accused and the same had matched with the empties secured from the place of occurrence
Offence alleged against the accused came within the purview of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was found guilty during investigation conducted by the police
Sufficient incriminating material was available on record connecting the accused with the commission of offence
Grounds urged by the accused required deeper appreciation of evidence which could not be taken into consideration at bail stage
Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J.
Alam Khan petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.232/2020 dated 10.09.2020 offence under section 302, P.P.C. at police station Harnoli District Mianwali.
2. According to FIR on 09.09.2020 at about 11:00 P.M, unknown accused persons committed the murder of Muhammad Faisal deceased by causing firearm injuries.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It has been noticed that although it was an unseen occurrence yet petitioner was nominated in the FIR by the complainant on the basis of statements made by Muhammad Bilal and Muhammad Gull Hasan who had seen Muhammad Faisal deceased along with petitioner on the same day of occurrence (09.09.2020) while going towards 'Kandiwal'. On 11.09.2020 police recorded the statements of Muhammad Qasim and Muhammad Imran P.Ws under section 161 Cr.P.C. In their said statements both the aforesaid P.Ws took stance that on 09.09.2020 they were present in their fields near Kandiwal and on report of firing, they reached at the spot and identified the petitioner who allegedly committed the murder of Muhammad Faisal deceased. Record also reveals that on 12.09.2020 police recorded the statements of Naseer Ahmad and Mohsin P.Ws under section 161 Cr.P.C wherein they took stance that on 11.09.2020 they were present at the shop where petitioner came and confessed his guilt with the claim that he had committed the murder of Muhamamd Faisal. During investigation, pistol 30-bore was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and same was sent to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore for its analysis. According to the report of Forensic Science Agency, Lahore, the empties which were secured from the place of occurrence were found fired from said pistol allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The offences alleged against the petitioner come within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner was found guilty during investigation conducted by the police. Prima facie sufficient incriminating material is available on record connecting the petitioner with the commission of instant occurrence. The grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner requires deeper appreciation of evidence which cannot be taken into consideration at bail stage. Reliance is placed on cases reported as "Sarfraz v. The State and 2 others" (2010 YLR 2678 Lahore), "Jaleel Ahmad and others v. The State" (1995 PCr.LJ 1583 Lahore), "Mushtaq v. The State" (1993 PCr.LJ 2389) and "Allah Ditta and others" v. The State (1983 PCr.LJ 2545, Lahore).
5. For what has been discussed above, instant petition having no force stands dismissed. SA/A-56/L Bail declined.