2010 PLP 2542 (YLR)
SHAUKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2542 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Dost Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI — 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 2010 PLP 2542 (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 2010 PLP 2542 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Dost Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2542 (YLR) (SHAUKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pir Fayyaz Ali and Saifullah Khalil for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 2010.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34
Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd
Motive for the crime was a dispute over property
Accused having been charged only for ineffective firing, it was to be ascertained from the available materials as to whether any circumstantial or corroboratory evidence showed participation of accused in the crime in any manner whatsoever
Neither any empty nor any spent bullet was recovered from the place of occurrence
Injury on the person of deceased had suggested that it was caused from the very close distance; and when empty of .12 bore had been recovered from the place of co-accused and medical evidence also supported the prosecution's case against the principal accused, while accused's case was entirely distinguishable and was clearly the one which would require further enquiry
Plea of complainant that accused having absconded, bail should be refused to accused was not tenable, because once the case was found one of further inquiry, then abscondence alone would not operate as absolute bar in the way of grant of bail
Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. Mukhtar Ahmad Awan's case 1991 SCMR 322; Mitho Pitafi v. The State 2009 SCMR 299 and Ghulam Qasim v. The State and another 2008 PCr.LJ 1371 ref. Alamgir Durrani, D.A.-G for the State and Rehman Ullah Shah for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--Accused-petitioner, Shaukat Ali, has been booked for crimes under sections 302/324/ 34, P.P.C. in case F.I.R. No. 206 dated 16-7-2003 by Police Station Azakhel Nowshera, hence, he seeks bail in the case.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Zahir Zaman, complainant, reported the crime on 16-7-2003 at 08-15 hours that he along with deceased Muhammad Tariq was busy in work in the land when the petitioner along with co-accused, Abdul Qayyum, emerged duly armed and fired at them but with the fire shot of co-accused, Abdul Qayyum, the deceased was hit and died. Motive for the crime was a dispute over property.
4. As was also contended at the bar, the present accused-petitioner is charged only for ineffective firing, thus, it is to be ascertained from the available materials as to whether there is any circumstantial or corroboratory evidence, showing, his participation in the crime in any manner whatsoever. In this regard, neither any empty nor any spent bullet was recovered from the place of the present petitioner or from the place of the deceased and complainant to show that a second person made firing along with the principal accused.
5. The injury on the person of deceased shown in the pictorial would suggest that it was caused from a very close distance and when empty of .12 bore has been recovered from the place of co-accused, Abdul Qayyum, and medical evidence also support the prosecution's case against the principal accused while the petitioner's case is entirely distinguishable and is clearly the one which would require further enquiry.
6. The plea of the prosecution/ complainant that the petitioner absconded, therefore, he be refused bail, is not tenable because once the case is found one of further enquiry then abscondence alone shall not operate as an absolute bar in way of grant of bail, as was held by the Apex Court in the case of "Mukhtar Ahmad Awan" (1991 SCMR 322) while in a latest dicta the same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Reference may be made to this effect to the case of "Mitho Pitafi v. The State" (2009 SCMR 299) and the view of this Court in the case of "Ghulam Qasim v. The State and another" (2008 PCr.LJ 1371).
7. Accordingly, this petition for bail is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of rupees three lac (Rs.3,00,000) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. H.B.T./182/P Bail granted.