2017 PLP 100 (YLRN)
ZUMARAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 100 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | ZUMARAD KHAN — 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 2017 PLP 100 (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 2017 PLP 100 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 100 (YLRN) (ZUMARAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, common intention
Name of accused, was not figured in the FIR
Accused had been involved in the case through a supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant after registration of FIR, wherein the deceased allegedly was lastly seen by the prosecution witnesses going on motorcycle along with accused and his co-accused; who emerged as main accused during investigation with the role of firing at the deceased
Accused had been involved in the case on the basis of last seen evidence; whereas no overt act had been ascribed to accused therein
Circumstantial evidence based on suspicion was a weak type of evidence and same was to be appreciated by the court at the time of trial on the touchstone of other pieces of evidence
Suspicion, howsoever was grave or strong, could not be considered as an evidence required in murder case
Motive, had been introduced in the case at belated stage during investigation
No such motive was mentioned in the FIR
Accused was real brother of co-accused to whom role of firing on deceased was attributed
Possibility could not be ruled out that while widening the net, complainant had involved accused in the case
Evidentiary value of alleged recovered mobile phone sets from accused, would be considered by the Trial Court at the time of trial
Accused was behind the bars since his arrest on 3-12-2015; investigation of the case qua accused was complete; accused was previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case
Conclusion of trial was not expected in a near future; continuous incarceration of accused in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose
Trial of accused, though was in progress, but commencement of trial was no ground to refuse bail, who otherwise had become entitled for concession of bail
Accused, was admitted to bail, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment] Sh. Istijabat Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State with Anjum, SI with record.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Zumard Khan petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 349/15, dated 26.11.2015 registered at Police Station Fateh Jang, District Attock in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. During the investigation section 34, P.P.C. had been added to the FIR.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case it has been noticed by this Court that the name of the petitioner is not figured in the FIR rather he has been involved in this case through a supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant after registration of FIR wherein allegedly the deceased was lastly seen by PWs going on motorcycle along with the petitioner and his co-accused Imran who emerged as main accused during investigation with the role of firing at deceased. The petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of last-seen evidence whereas no overt act has been ascribed to him therein and law is quite settled on the point that circumstantial evidence based on suspicion is a weak type of evidence and the same is to be appreciated by the courts of law at the time of trial with the touch stone of other pieces of evidence. Likewise, law is also settled on the point that suspicion howsoever is grave or strong cannot be considered as an evidence required in murder case. The motive has been introduced in this case at belated stage during investigation as in the FIR the complainant had not mentioned motive, i.e. illicit liaison of deceased with wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is real brother of his co-accused Imran to whom role of firing on deceased is attributed so possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that while widening the net the complainant has involved the petitioner in this case. The evidentiary value of alleged recovered mobile phone sets from the petitioner would be considered by the learned trial court at the time of trial. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest, i.e. 03.12.2015, the investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, the petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, the conclusion of trial is not expected in near future, thus, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. Although trial of the petitioner is in progress yet commencement of trial is no ground to refuse bail who otherwise becomes entitled for concession of bail.
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the leaned trial Court. HBT/Z-17/L Bail granted.