2022 PLP 11 (YLRN)
WAQAS AHMED alias TIGER — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 PLP 11 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WAQAS AHMED alias TIGER — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 11 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 11 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan 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: 2022 PLP 11 (YLRN) (WAQAS AHMED alias TIGER — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Burhan Wali for Petitioner.
- Deputy Advocate General for the State.
- 5. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role. The learned Dy. Advocate General further argued that weapon of offence has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner/accused; therefore, the petitioner/accused is not entitled for concession of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 188, 285 & 290
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 11-EE & 21-D
Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant
Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter
Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for
Scope
Prosecution case was that the name of accused was placed in Sched. IV of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; that police were monitoring him and that the accused opened aerial firing near a government office
Held, Ss.188, 285 & 290, P.P.C. were bailable
Trial Court would thrash out during trial whether the accused was a member of proscribed organization or not, thus the case of accused was one of further inquiry
Accused was entitled for concession of bail
Even perusal of provisions of S.21-D(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, showed that S. 11-EE, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was also bailable
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAIG, J.
This petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/accused namely Waqas Ahmed alias Tiger for grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No.52/2020 dated 21.05.2020 registered under sections 285, 290, 188, P.P.C. and 11 EE, ATA, 1997 at Police Station City, Gilgit at the behest of one Syed Ashiq Hussain SIP, the complainant.
2. Succinctly prosecution story as disclosed in the FIR is that name of the present petitioner/accused was placed in Schedule-IV of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and police were monitoring him. On 21.05.2020 at 18:30 hours, the petitioner/ accused opened aerial firing near AGPR Office Konodas, Gilgit and escaped from the place of occurrence.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused contended that the petitioner/ accused is innocent and police have falsely implicated the petitioner/accused in this case with mala fide intention to humiliate the petitioner/ accused in the society. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further argued that all sections reflected in FIR are bailable; therefore, the petitioner/ accused is entitled for concession of bail.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role. The learned Dy. Advocate General further argued that weapon of offence has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner/accused; therefore, the petitioner/accused is not entitled for concession of bail.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. Admittedly, sections 188, 285, 290, P.P.C. are bailable. As far as section 11-EE of ATA, 1997 is concerned, this section was meant for proscribed organization or members of proscribed organization, but prima facie, the petitioner/accused is not a member of Proscribed Organization. However, the learned trial court will thrush out during trial that whether the petitioner is a member of Proscribed Organization or not, thus the case of the petitioner/ accused is one of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and petitioner/ accused is entitled for concession of bail. Even perusal of provisions of section 21-D(2) of ATA, 1997, it shows that section 11-EE, ATA is also bailable.
8. Result of above discussion is that, this petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court or any Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit. File. SA/115/GB Bail granted