2019 PLP 1330 (YLR)
MURSLEEN — Petitioner Versus Syed EHSAN SHAH — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1330 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | MURSLEEN — Petitioner Versus Syed EHSAN SHAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1330 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1330 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1330 (YLR) (MURSLEEN — Petitioner Versus Syed EHSAN SHAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jehanzeb Khan for Petitioner.
- Aneesullah Khan and Hujjatullah Khan for Respondent.
- Dy. Advocate General for the State.
- 3. The above petition was admitted for regular hearing on 06-11-2018 and SSP Diamer was directed to ensure presence of SHO/IO of the case and the respondent before this Court on 06.11.2018. On 06.11.2018 the bar was on strike and the case was posted to 08.11.2018. On 08.11.2018 SHO Police Station Thore Mir Ghani appeared before this Court. The respondent was also produced before this Court and he was directed to engage a counsel. The case was posted to 09-11-2018 for arguments. On 09-11-2018 Mr. Aneesullah, Advocate filed his wakalatnama on behalf of the respondent and requested for an adjournment, which was allowed and the case was fixed for arguments today.
- 4. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the judgment/order of learned trial Court is an arbitrary order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the respondent is directly charged in the FIR for commission of murder of deceased Fidaullah. Weapon of offence has also been recovered from the possession of the respondent/accused and a separate FIR under section 13 A.O. has been registered against the respondent. The learned counsel vehemently contended that it was a case of single accused and the complainant has not thrown the net wide. There is a prima facie case against the respondent and bail granting order be recalled in the larger interest of justice. The learned Dy. Advocate General adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant, with the submission that the judgment/order of learned trial Court is against the settled principles governing principles for grant of bail in the offences of heinous nature.
- 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent defended the judgment/order of learned trial Court and submitted that the judgment/order has been passed after due application of judicial mind and reasons for grant of bail advanced in the judgment/order impugned before this Court are not imaginary and speculative rather find support from the material collected by the prosecution during investigation. The learned counsel further submitted that it was a night occurrence and identification of respondent was not possible in odd hours of night. The learned counsel for respondent relied on 2017 SCMR 1944, PLD 2008 Lah. 208, 2008 PCr.LJ 1565 and 2008 SCMR 1715.
- 6. It was a night occurrence, which took place on 26-07-2017 at 0100 a.m. and the report was lodge at 05:30 a.m. on the same day. The complainant/eye-witnesses have to establish that in dark hours of night they were able to identify the respondent/accused. The learned trial Court has rightly extended the concession of bail to the respondent considering his case as one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant and the learned Dy. Advocate General failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment/ order which is upheld. There are different parameters for cancellation of bail, when the same is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction on the grounds of further inquiry.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention
Application for cancellation of bail, refusal of
Bail was granted to the accused on the ground of further inquiry
Night occurrence
Petitioner/ complainant contended that bail was wrongly granted to the respondent/ accused as he was directly charged in the FIR and weapon of offence was also recovered from him
Respondent/ accused contended that his case, being a night occurrence, fell under the ambit of further inquiry
Present case was of a night occurrence which took place at 01:00 A.M and the report was lodged at 05:30 A.M. the same day
Complainant/eye-witnesses had to establish that in dark hours of night they were able to identify the accused
Trial Court had rightly extended the concession of bail to the accused considering his case as one of the further inquiry falling under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.
Different parameters existed for cancellation of bail
Court of competent jurisdiction had granted bail to the accused on the grounds of further inquiry
Complainant had failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned order
Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Dy. Advocate General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The respondent was booked for the offences under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No.19 of 2017 registered at Police Station, Thore on 26-07-2017 on the written application of the petitioner/ complainant.
2. The respondent applied for post arrest bail, which was allowed to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Diamer vide order dated 09-10-2018. The complainant being aggrieved from the said order has assailed the same before this Court by filing the instant Cr. Misc. No.199/2018 under section 497(5), Cr.P.C.
3. The above petition was admitted for regular hearing on 06-11-2018 and SSP Diamer was directed to ensure presence of SHO/IO of the case and the respondent before this Court on 06.11.2018. On 06.11.2018 the bar was on strike and the case was posted to 08.11.2018. On 08.11.2018 SHO Police Station Thore Mir Ghani appeared before this Court. The respondent was also produced before this Court and he was directed to engage a counsel. The case was posted to 09-11-2018 for arguments. On 09-11-2018 Mr. Aneesullah, Advocate filed his wakalatnama on behalf of the respondent and requested for an adjournment, which was allowed and the case was fixed for arguments today.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the judgment/order of learned trial Court is an arbitrary order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the respondent is directly charged in the FIR for commission of murder of deceased Fidaullah. Weapon of offence has also been recovered from the possession of the respondent/accused and a separate FIR under section 13 A.O. has been registered against the respondent. The learned counsel vehemently contended that it was a case of single accused and the complainant has not thrown the net wide. There is a prima facie case against the respondent and bail granting order be recalled in the larger interest of justice. The learned Dy. Advocate General adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant, with the submission that the judgment/order of learned trial Court is against the settled principles governing principles for grant of bail in the offences of heinous nature.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent defended the judgment/order of learned trial Court and submitted that the judgment/order has been passed after due application of judicial mind and reasons for grant of bail advanced in the judgment/order impugned before this Court are not imaginary and speculative rather find support from the material collected by the prosecution during investigation. The learned counsel further submitted that it was a night occurrence and identification of respondent was not possible in odd hours of night. The learned counsel for respondent relied on 2017 SCMR 1944, PLD 2008 Lah. 208, 2008 PCr.LJ 1565 and 2008 SCMR 1715.
6. It was a night occurrence, which took place on 26-07-2017 at 0100 a.m. and the report was lodge at 05:30 a.m. on the same day. The complainant/eye-witnesses have to establish that in dark hours of night they were able to identify the respondent/accused. The learned trial Court has rightly extended the concession of bail to the respondent considering his case as one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant and the learned Dy. Advocate General failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment/ order which is upheld. There are different parameters for cancellation of bail, when the same is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction on the grounds of further inquiry.
7. In view of above discussion, the bail cancellation application filed by the complainant/petitioner is dismissed being meritless.
8. File be consigned to record after completion. MQ/223/GB Bail cancelled.