2014 PLP 1900 (YLR)
ALLAH DAD and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1900 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Irshad Qaiser, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DAD and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1900 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 1900 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Mrs. Irshad Qaiser, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1900 (YLR) (ALLAH DAD and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Jamal Qureshi and Mian Arshad Jan for Appellants.
- Miss Farhana Marwat for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th April, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 34
Accused persons, though had been directly charged in the F.I.R., but in absence of any overt act attributed to them, their complicity in the crime, called for further inquiry
Accused remained in Police custody, but there was nothing to link them with the crime, which would weigh in favour of bail, rather than jail
Co-accused, assigned similar role, having been granted bail, accused persons could not be dealt with differently
Ultimate conviction, if any, would repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail; and no reparation could be offered for unjustified incarceration, if the case against accused ended in his acquittal
Accused, was released on bail, in circumstances. Miss Mehmooda Gul for the State.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD QAISER, J.
Petitioners who are charged in a case registered against them and one another under sections 302/34 P.P.C., vide F.I.R. No.28 dated 11-1-2013 in Police Station Pabbi, Nowshera, have asked for their release on bail mainly on the grounds that no direct or circumstantial evidence is available on the file to connected them with the crime and that their case being at par with their co-accused who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27-2-2013, therefore, they also deserves similar treatment.
2. As against that, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, contended that the petitioners prima facie stand connected with the crime attracting prohibitory clause, if seen in the context of the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant, that too, when the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the petitioners, therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail at least at this stage.
3. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Whether the petitioners could be held responsible, when the murder of the deceased seems to have been committed in a secret and sophisticated manner and whether the deceased was done to death through strangulation or the murder of the deceased was the result of suicide, when the occurrence being unwitnessed and no body has seen the occurrence. Yes, the petitioners have been directly charged in the F.I.R. but in the absence of any overt act attributed to them, their complicity in the crime calls for further inquiry. The fact that the accused remained in Police custody, yet nothing came to the fore to link them with a crime, would constitute yet another circumstance, which would weigh in favour of bail rather than Jail. Quite apart from this, when the co-accused assigned similar role has been granted bail by this Court, vide on dated 27-2-2013, the petitioners cannot be dealt with differently. It is too known to be reiterated that ultimate conviction, if any, would repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail and no reparation can be offered for an unjustified incarceration, if the case against the accused ends in his acquittal. I, therefore, allow this petition for ball and direct that the petitioners be released on bail, if each one of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Allaqa/Judicial Magistrate who is to ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. HBT/171/P Bail granted.