2003 PLP 669 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 669 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Malik Hamid Saeed, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑ — 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 2003 PLP 669 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 669 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Malik Hamid Saeed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 669 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imtiaz‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th January, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused had remained absconder for about three years and during this period trial of co‑accused was completed and he was acquitted‑‑‑Noticeable abscondence of accused had disentitled him to the concession of bail which could not be granted to him at such stage as bonus for his abscondence‑‑‑Bail was declined to the accused in circumstances. Wahidullah Khan for the State Abdul Latif Afridi for the Complainant
Judgment & Decree
Wahidullah Khan for the State Abdul Latif Afridi for the Complainant Date of hearing: 17th January, 2003. Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner, is involved in case F.I.R. No. 1113 dated 21‑12‑1999 Police Station, Prang under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. He has been refused bail by the learned Courts below.
2. Effective role of firing is attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence reported by Gulzar Ali for the murder of his uncle Masal Khan due to blood feud enmity.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that co‑accused of the petitioner was tried in the case and acquitted by the Court below vide judgment dated 29‑8‑2002 wherein solitary, eye‑witnesses of the occurrence was not relied upon. The learned counsel for the complainant and State argued that not only effective role of firing is attributed to the petitioner, but he remained absconder for a long period of about three years and, therefore, the learned Courts below have rightly exercised their discretion by not allowing concession of bail to the petitioner.
4. I find myself in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and State as the accused remained absconder for about three years during which period trial of the co‑accused was, completed in absence of the accused and co‑accused was acquitted. Therefore, without prejudice to the merits of the case, bail could not be granted to the accused/petitioner at this stage as bonus for his abscondence, as noticeable abscondenee of an accused disentitles him to the concession of bail.
5. The bail application is hereby dismissed However, it may be observed that supplementary challan in the case has already been I submitted in the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court is directed to expeditiously conclude the trial in the case preferably within two months, otherwise, the petitioner could move bail application in the trial Court. N.H.Q./710/P Bail refused.