SCMR 2020

2020 PLP 937 (SCMR)

BILAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G., Punjab and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 715 of 2018, decided on 2nd August, 2018.*
Honorable Judges
Sh. Azmat Saeed and Yahya Afridi, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2020 PLP 937 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Sh. Azmat Saeed and Yahya Afridi, JJ
Parties BILAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G., Punjab and another — Respondents
Primary Law (b) 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 937 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) 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 937 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Azmat Saeed and Yahya Afridi, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 937 (SCMR) (BILAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G., Punjab and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

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

Representation

  • Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Ahmed Nawaz Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal against the judgment/order dated 24.05.2018 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Misc. No. 208332-B of 2018)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 34 & 109

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, abetment

Bail, refusal of

Accused was nominated in the FIR with a specific role of causing firearm injury to the injured witness

Said injured witness had implicated the accused and stood by his statement

Sufficient material was available on record to connect the accused with the crime

Offence also fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and accused was refused bail in circumstances.

S. 497

Bail

Evidence, assessment of

At bail stage only tentative assessment (of evidence) was to be made and deeper appreciation was not permissible. M. Usman Mirza, Dy. PG for the State.

Judgment & Decree

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.

Through this Criminal Petition, the Petitioner is seeking post arrest bail in case FIR No. 293/2017 dated 04.11.2017, under sections 324, 109/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Mochh, which has been declined to him by the fora below.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Petitioner was found innocent in the police investigation and no recovery has been effected from the Petitioner. It is further contended that the PWs in their respective statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. did not incriminate the Petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the Complainant and the learned DPG have controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner.

4. There can be no escape from the fact that the Petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role of causing firearm injury to one Zararullah Khan. The said injured PW has accused the Petitioner and stands by his statement. It is not clear on what basis the Police found the Petitioner innocent. At the bail stage, only a tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation is not permissible. There is sufficient material on record to connect the Petitioner with the crime. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. in this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant post-arrest bail to the Petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition must fail.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition being without merit is dismissed and leave declined. MWA/B-10/SC Bail refused.