2017 PLP 733 (YLR)
SAID KAMAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 733 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Waqar Ahmed Seth, J |
| Parties | SAID KAMAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 733 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 733 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Waqar Ahmed Seth, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 733 (YLR) (SAID KAMAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai for Petitioner.
- Ms. Bibi Saba and Muhammad Daud Barki for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(3)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 411
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S.15
Haraaba, dishonestly receiving stolen property, possessing unlicensed arms
Complainant had charged unknown accused in the FIR
Accused was charged later on by the complainant, for the commission of offence, through his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.
Complainant had stated in the FIR that he could identify the accused, if came before him
Complainant and alleged eye-witness during the identification parade, had failed to identify the accused
Pistol and alleged snatched money were though recovered but no documentary evidence was available on file to show the detail of recovered amount
Sufficient material was available, which would make the case of accused that of further inquiry
Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.
S. 497
Principle
Observations made in bail matter were tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either side at trial.
Judgment & Decree
WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.
Through this bail petition, petitioner Said Kamal son of Gul Badshah, seeks his release on bail in case FIR No. 891 dated 02.05.2016, charged under section 17(3) Haraba of Police Station Pahari Pura, which was refused to him by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Peshawar.
2. Arguments heard and record gone through.
3. Perusal of record reveals that initially complainant has charged unknown accused in the FIR dated 2.5.2016 for the commission of offence, however it was on 31.8.2016, when he recorded his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. has charged the present accused-petitioner along with his co-accused for the commission of offence. In the FIR complainant states that he can identify the accused-petitioners, if came before him, but during the identification parade conducted on 15.9.2016, both the complainant as well as the alleged eye-witness have failed to identify him. Though, the recovery of pistol, alleged snatched money of rupees three lacs out of ten lacs have been recovered, but nothing in the shape of documentary is available on file to show that any sort of identification or whatever regarding the recovered money has been made. At present sufficient material is available on file which would make the case of present accused-petitioner is that of further inquiry. The accused-petitioner has been interrogated and investigation but nothing in the shape of confession has been brought on record.
4. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this bail is allowed. Accused-petitioner be released on bail subject to furnishing bails bonds in the sum of rupees 4,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
5. Needless to mention here that discussions made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either side at the trial.
6. These are the reasons vide short order dated 25.11.2016. JK/17/P Petition allowed.