2019 P Cr (PLP)
EJAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | EJAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 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 2019 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 P Cr (PLP) (EJAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sadiq Hussain for Petitioner.
- Deputy Advocate-General for the State.
- 5. The learned Dy. Advocate General and the counsel for complainant opposed the bail and submitted that although the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR, but there is sufficient incriminating evidence available against the petitioner. During investigation an iron bar was recovered from the petitioner on his pointation and co-accused made an inculpatory statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., fully implicating the petitioner as an active participant in the occurrence. The petitioner took life of an innocent person. The offence entails the punishment of death/life and he is not entitled for concession of bail. They relied on 2005 PCr.LJ 244, 2002 PCr.LJ 1259, 2010 PCr.LJ 1868, 2000 SCMR 1634, 1999 PCr.LJ 9 and 2009 PCr.LJ 1250.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 380, 457, 34 & 75
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 43
Qatl-i-amd, theft in dwelling house, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence, common intention and enhanced punishment for certain offences after previous conviction
Inculpatory statement of co-accused
Scope
Scope
Petitioner sought post-arrest bail
Petitioner was not nominated in the FIR and he was arrested during investigation of the case
Iron bar was recovered from petitioner's possession in presence of independent witnesses, which was allegedly used for commission of offence
Co-accused confessed his guilt during investigation and got recorded an inculpatory statement before Magistrate under S. 164, Cr.P.C. where in which he fully implicated the accused
Plea of alibi was not raised during investigation of the case and the same could not be considered by the court at bail stage without any cogent and reliable proof
Statement of co-accused facing the same trial in the case could be used against the accused as a circumstantial evidence under Art. 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984
Sufficient incriminating evidence was available against the petitioner which disentitled him for concession of bail
Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner was booked in the offences under sections 302/380/457/34/75, P.P.C. vide FIR No.48/2018 of Police Station Danyore.
2. The petitioner was not nominated in the FIR and was arrested during investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, he was committed to judicial custody to stand trial.
3. The petitioner applied for post arrest bail, which was declined vide judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 04.03.2019.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was involved in the offences due to mala fidies of the local police without any substantive evidence. The co-accused Fazal Abbas is a habitual criminal and his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., under law cannot be used against the petitioner. The petitioner was not present in Gilgit during the days of occurrence. The recovery effected from the petitioner is also planted and the same has been effected in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel relied on 2012 PCr.LJ 1293, 1995 PCr.LJ 1938 and 2000 PCr.LJ 1734.
5. The learned Dy. Advocate General and the counsel for complainant opposed the bail and submitted that although the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR, but there is sufficient incriminating evidence available against the petitioner. During investigation an iron bar was recovered from the petitioner on his pointation and co-accused made an inculpatory statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., fully implicating the petitioner as an active participant in the occurrence. The petitioner took life of an innocent person. The offence entails the punishment of death/life and he is not entitled for concession of bail. They relied on 2005 PCr.LJ 244, 2002 PCr.LJ 1259, 2010 PCr.LJ 1868, 2000 SCMR 1634, 1999 PCr.LJ 9 and 2009 PCr.LJ 1250.
6. Heard in detail and record of the case perused.
7. The petitioner is not nominated in the FIR and he was arrested during investigation of the case. One iron bar was recovered from his possession in presence of independent witnesses, which was allegedly used for commission of the offence. The co-accused Fazal Abbas during investigation confessed his guilt and got recorded an inculpatory statement before a Judicial Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. in which he fully implicated the accused. The plea of alibi was not raised during investigation of the case and the same cannot be considered by this Court at bail stage, without any cogent and reliable proof of the absence of the petitioner on the day of occurrence. The statement of co-accused facing the same trial in the case could be used against the accused as a circumstantial evidence under Article 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. There is sufficient incriminating evidence available against the accused/petitioner, which disentitles him for concession of bail.
8. In the wake of above discussions, the petition in hand is declined accordingly.