1994 PLP 1431 (MLD)
KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1431 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD — 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 1994 PLP 1431 (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 1994 PLP 1431 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1431 (MLD) (KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Rehman Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34/109/113
Bail, grant of-- Incident being of two versions only Trial Court could determine after scrutiny of evidence as to how the occurrence took place and who was the real culprit-- No tangible evidence except the delayed confession of the co-accused was available to support the charge against the accused
Challan in the case was complete and accused was no more required to associate with the investigation
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner remained unsuccessful in obtaining bail from the learned lower Courts in case F.I.R. No. 17, dated 12-1-1994 under section 324/34, Qisas and Diyat/109/113, P.P.C. and hence he has approached this Court for the same relief.
2. Mir Baz complainant reported the incident of firing at him by the three brothers Hazrat Ali, Farzand Ali and Sadaqat Ali and stated that he was hit with the fire of Hazrat Ali with Kashinkov. Ali Haider has been named as witness in the F.I.R.
3. I heard both the learned counsel in support of their contentions and went through the record.
4. It is to be noted that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the eye-witness Ali Haider the present petitioner has been involved in any manner in the offence. Farzand Ali one of the accused named in the F.I.R. was arrested on 12-1-1994 and his confession was recorded on 18-1-1994. In this confession the petitioner has been shown as instrumental in the managed arrest of the three accused in a case under section 13, A.O. and also in arranging for hiring assailants for the murder of the complainant. It is thus manifest that in the F.I.R. Hazrat Ali has been charged for effective while another two brothers for ineffective firing at the complainant whereas it is alleged in the confession statement by one of the accused that they were in confinement in jail in a case under section 13 of tie Arms Ordinance and that it was a hired assassin who had perpetrated the offence. The prosecution does not seriously deny the arrest of the accused named in the F.I.R. in case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. At this stage there are two versions of the incident and it will be determined at the trial after scrutiny through evidence as to how the occurrence took place and who was the real culprit. Besides the delayed confession of the co-accused there is no other tangible evidence to support the charge against the petitioner. Moreover the challan in the case has been completed and, therefore, the petitioner is no more required to associate with the investigation.
5. I, therefore, deem it proper to allow petitioner bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount and to the satisfaction of I the Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate. N.H.Q./1544/P Bail allowed.