2017 PLP 1712 (YLR)
GUL SAFAID — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1712 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | GUL SAFAID — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1712 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1712 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1712 (YLR) (GUL SAFAID — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Khaliq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-A, 341 & 34
Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., wrongful restraint, common intention
Alleged abductee, charged accused for commission of offence
Mere fact that some of accused persons nominated in the FIR had been released by the Police under S.169, Cr.P.C., would not advance the case of accused for grant of bail
Accused went underground after commission of offence, and was arrested later on
Conduct of accused soon after commission of offence and long and unexplained abscondance and his arrest after hectic efforts, were the factors, which disentitled him for concession of bail
Accused had criminal credentials; as case under S.302/34, P.P.C., was registered against him, which was pending adjudication in the Trial Court
Accused was in judicial lock-up since last 9 months, without any substantial progress in the case
Trial Court was directed by the Chief Court to conclude the trial of the case within the shortest possible time
Bail petition being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances. Dy.A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The accused/petitioner stands booked for the offences under sections 365-A/341/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Daril.
2. The brief facts as narrated by complainant Imtiaz Ahmad son of Haji Shah Room are that on 14.01.2012 at 0800 a.m., the complainant was sitting in his own vehicle bearing registration No. DMR-A-15, which was being driven by one Asbar Khan son of Wazir Khan, resident of Khinbari. When the vehicle reached near road Thak, where accused Lobar son of Muhammad Shafi, Gul Safaid, Sher Muhammad son of Mussa Khan, Aleemullah, Abdul Malik, Ijaz Ul Haq, Snoar Alam, Zia ul Haq son of Shmber, Furqan, Pervaiz Iqbal, Attiullah son of Rahim Ullah abducted the driver and also took the vehicle of the complainant along with them. The motive was stated to be an old enmity between the parties.
3. After registration of the FIR, the accused went underground and could not be arrested. The accused was arrested on 23.11.2015 from Abbotabad.
4. The accused/petitioner applied for post arrest bail in the trial Court, which was declined vide order dated 03.05.2016 and being aggrieved from the said order the petitioner has approached this Court for the concession of bail.
5. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submitted that the case is false and result of long standing enmity between the parties, and the other accused, who were attributed similar role in FIR have been released by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel contended that when major portion of FIR has not been believed, then the petitioner's involvement is also not above board. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail as his case is one of the cases of further inquiry.
6. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G, submitted that the petitioner is directly charged in the FIR and after commission of offence, he went underground and was arrested after a long time. The learned Dy.A.G, further argued that the petitioner is a habitual criminal and if enlarged on bail, he will jump bail and will hamper the trial.
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the record of the case, and the statement of driver of the vehicle namely Asbar Khan. The alleged abductee categorically charged the petitioner for commission of the offence. The mere fact that some of the accused nominated in the FIR have been released by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C., will not advance the case of petitioner for grant of bail. As evident from record that the accused went underground after commission of offence and was arrested from Abbotabad by the local police. The accused has criminal credential as case under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered against him vide FIR No. 19/96, which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Diamer.
8. The conduct of accused soon after commission of offence and long and unexplained abscondence and his arrest from Abbotabad after hectic efforts by the local police are the factors, which dis-entitles him for concession of bail.
9. The petitioner is stated to be in judicial lockup since last 9 months, without any substantial progress in the case. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within the shortest possible time.
10. The result is that the petition is dismissed being meritless. HBT/108/GB Bail refused.