2017 P Cr (PLP)
BACHA ZEB and 2 others — Petitioners Versus STATE through Additional Advocate-General and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (Mingora Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BACHA ZEB and 2 others — Petitioners Versus STATE through Additional Advocate-General and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 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 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (Mingora Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (BACHA ZEB and 2 others — Petitioners Versus STATE through Additional Advocate-General and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- STATE through Additional Advocate-General and another---Respondents
- Sher Muhammad Khan and Ihsanullah for Petitioners.
- 6. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondent while relying on the dictums referred developed their own arguments pro and contra, the former for acceptance of the bail application while the latter for its rejection. The State being represented by the learned Assistant Advocate General also argued his own stance for rejection of the application.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, common intention
Blind murder
No witness had come forward till investigation was undergoing as to who had killed the deceased
Incident was a night occurrence and a blind murder
Statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. revealed that being not eye-witnesses each one had charged the accused persons on surmises as there was previous blood feud amongst family members of the accused and the deceased party
Evidentiary value of such statements would be determined during trial and could not be considered at bail stage
Question that whether the accused persons had committed the crime in a brutal manner or implication of each one was result of previous enmity/motive would be considered and determined by Trial Court after recording evidence
Case of each accused fell under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Bail was granted accordingly. [Paras. 7 & 8 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, J.
All the three accused-petitioners are jointly looking for their post-arrest bail in case FIR No.418 dated 23.10.2016 under sections 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Talash, District Dir Lower.
2. Prior to, these accused-petitioners had jointly filed application for their release on bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Chakdara at Camp Court Timergara which was dismissed vide a slipshod order.
3. The Murasila culminated in the first information report would reveal that the officer incharge of the police station was present in his office who received information that a dead corpse is lying in the fields of Nasafa village. He arranged his squad and rushed to the place of occurrence where he found a corpse soaked with blood. On his personal search in the presence of Gul Karim and Sher Wali Jan who were residents of Upper Dir, from the right side pocket of his waistcoat a copy of NIC contained therein was recovered while from the left side pocket of his waistcoat a copy of license of .30 bore pistol along with cash amount of Rs.1,48,830/-, 2000/- Saudi Riyal, mobile set Nokia containing SIM card and a .30 bore pistol around the body of deceased were also recovered. As by that time no one was available for making a report, thus, incharge police station has become complainant of this case.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent along with the learned Assistant A.G, record with their valuable assistance gone through.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on 2005 YLR 1220 (Muhammad Bashir Guraya v. Raja Muhammad Irshad and another), 2008 PCr.LJ (Lahore) 1578 (Javed Iqbal v. The State), 2009 YLR 301 (Muhammad Anis v. The State), 2015 YLR (Peshawar) 1952 (Fazal Amin alias Toary v. Shahid Zaman and another), 2014 MLD (Peshawar) 410 (Ahmad Jan v. The State and 5 others) and 2008 MLD (Peshawar) 1492 (Inamaulla v. The State and 2 others).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant referred to 2011 MLD (Peshawar) 691 (Mushtaq Ahmad and 2 others v. The State and 2 others), 2012 SCMR 1945 (Muhammad Yousaf Butt v. P.C. Abdul Latif Shar and another), 2016 MLD (Peshawar) 1619 (Mst. Nagina Gul Ali v. Tariq and others) and 1990 SCMR 346 (Abdul Aziz v. Saleh Muhammad).
6. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondent while relying on the dictums referred developed their own arguments pro and contra, the former for acceptance of the bail application while the latter for its rejection. The State being represented by the learned Assistant Advocate General also argued his own stance for rejection of the application.
7. This is a blind murder case. There is no witness who has come forward till investigation is undergoing as to who has killed the deceased identified as Razaqat Khan. It is a night occurrence and all the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. would reveal that being not eye-witnesses, each one has charged the accused-petitioners on surmises as there is previous blood feud amongst family members of the accused-petitioners and the deceased party.
8. As far as motive of previous blood feud is concerned, the question would yet arise whether the petitioners have committed the crime in such brutal manner or implication of each one is result of previous enmity/motive which will be considered and determined by the trial Court after recording evidence. As far as statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. of the persons who will stand as prosecution witnesses, the evidentiary value of the same statements being circumstantial in nature will be determined during trial and cannot be considered at this stage.
9. As case of each petitioner falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C, the matter is of further inquiry, therefore, this bail application is allowed and petitioners are released on bail provided each petitioner furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. WA/125/P Bail granted.