2010 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. AMINA BIBI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. AMINA BIBI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. AMINA BIBI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Hur Khan Baloch for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Zahid Khan for Respondents.
- 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that thirteen persons are charged in the case. Initially, the complainant has charged four persons for committing the crime but later on father of the deceased who is husband of the complainant charged another set of seven accused. According to him, the eye-witness Ghulam Sarwar has also resiled from the statement, therefore, being a case of further inquiry, the respondents were entitled to bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/148/149
Qatl-e -amd
Cancellation of bail, application for
Delay of six hours and ten minutes in making the first report, had not been plausibly explained
Record had revealed that initially six persons were charged for committing the offence, but later on more persons were included in the list of accused by the father of the deceased who was husband of the complainant
Statement of eye-witness had disclosed that he was not available on the spot
Record also disclosed that charge had been framed and trial had commenced
Bail, in such circumstances, could not be cancelled normally in order to avoid any adverse comments, which were likely to affect the trial
Even otherwise too strong and exceptional grounds were required for cancellation of bail, which were lacking in the case.
Judgment & Decree
ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.
This single order will dispose of BCA Nos. 149 and 150 of 2010, as both these petitions have arisen out of one and same case F.I.R.No.457 dated 2-8-2008 of police station Tank registered under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. The allegations against the respondents are that they in furtherance of common object of their co-accused who have been released on bail had committed the murder of Sher Zaman, son of the complainant Mst. Bakhtawarey wife of Gul Zaman with fire arms.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are directly charged for committing the murder of the deceased in a broad-daylight duly witnessed by Ghulam, the recovery of eight empties from the spot and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that thirteen persons are charged in the case. Initially, the complainant has charged four persons for committing the crime but later on father of the deceased who is husband of the complainant charged another set of seven accused. According to him, the eye-witness Ghulam Sarwar has also resiled from the statement, therefore, being a case of further inquiry, the respondents were entitled to bail.
5. I have gone through the record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The record reveals that the occurrence took place at about 0230 hours while its report was lodged at about 0840 hours and thus there is delay of six hours and ten minutes in making the first report which has not been plausibly explained. The record further reveals that initially six persons were charged for committing the offence but later on more persons were included in the list of accused by father of the deceased who is husband of the complainant. The statement of eye-witness Ghulam Sarwar discloses that he was not available on the spot. The record also discloses that charge has been framed and trial commenced. In such circumstances, bail cannot be cancelled normally in order to avoid any adverse comments which is likely to effect trial. Reference may be made to 2004 SCMR
231. Otherwise too, strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancellation of bail which are lacking here.
7. Consequently, I find no substance in either of the two bail cancellation applications which are accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./153/P Application dismissed.