SCMR 2020

2020 PLP 1486 (SCMR)

SHEQAB MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 591 of 2020, decided on 7th August, 2020.
Honorable Judges
Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2020 PLP 1486 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Parties SHEQAB MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
Primary Law (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1486 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) 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 2020 PLP 1486 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1486 (SCMR) (SHEQAB MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Anis M. Shahzad, Advocate Supreme Court with Samiullah, SHO and Abdul Kamal, I.O. for the State.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the order dated 05.06.2020 in Cr. M. (BA) 229-M/ 2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) Swat)

S. 497

Bail

In-depth analysis of the prosecution case was forbidden by law at bail stage.

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd

Bail, refusal of

In a daylight affair, two persons sustained firearm injuries besides one having endured violence through blunt means and as such required no public support to drive home the charge

Statements of injured victims supported by medical examinations of even date, prima facie brought case of accused within the mischief of S. 324, P.P.C., hit by statutory prohibition, in view whereof, he could not be released on bail in the absence of any consideration within the purview of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused was denied bail in circumstances

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324

Bail

Murderous assault

Vital and non-vital parts of victim's body

Relevance

Murderous assault as defined in S. 324, P.P.C. drew no anatomical distinction between vital or non-vital parts of human body

Once the triggered was pressed and the victim was effectively targeted, "intention or knowledge" as contemplated by S. 324, P.P.C. was manifested

Course of a bullet was not controlled or steered by assailant's choice nor could he claim any premium (at bail stage) for poor marksmanship. Anis M. Shahzad, Advocate Supreme Court with Samiullah, SHO and Abdul Kamal, I.O. for the State. Complainant in person.

Judgment & Decree

QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.

Petitioner is amongst the array of accused, blamed to have murderously assaulted the PWs at 9:10 a.m. on 10.4.2020 within the precincts of Police Station Himmat Khan Shaheen Kalangi, District Malakand, in the backdrop of a dispute over immovable property; fire shot attributed to the petitioner is confirmed by a medico legal certificate.

2. Heard.

3. Arguments that ocular account stands contradicted by medical evidence and in the absence of an independent witness from the public, petitioner's general participation, resulting into an injury on a non-vital part of the body, particularly in the absence of repeated fire shot, squarely brings his case within the remit of further probe, are not only beside the mark but also cannot be attended without undertaking an in-depth analysis of the prosecution case, an exercise forbidden by law at bail stage. In a daylight affair, two persons sustained firearm injuries besides the one having endured violence through blunt means and as such requires no public support to drive home the charge; their statements supported by medical examinations of even date, cumulatively bring petitioner's case prima facie within the mischief of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, hit by statutory prohibition, in view whereof, he cannot be released on bail in the absence of any consideration within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code ibid. Similarly, murderous assault as defined in the section ibid draws no anatomical distinction between vital or non-vital parts of human body. Once the triggered is pressed and the victim is effectively targeted, "intention or knowledge" as contemplated by the section ibid is manifested; the course of a bullet is not controlled or steered by assailant's choice nor can he claim any premium for a poor marksmanship. Exercise of discretion by the High Court being well within the bounds of law calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. MWA/S-32/SC Bail refused.