2016 PLP 1961 (MLD)
Peer WAHID SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1961 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Peer WAHID SHAH — 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 2016 PLP 1961 (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 2016 PLP 1961 (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: 2016 PLP 1961 (MLD) (Peer WAHID SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazal Haq Kohidamni for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 337-F(ii), 337-A(i), 382, 148 & 149
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing badiah, Shajjah-i-Khafifah, theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint, rioting, common object
Complainant, had not sustained any firearm injury
Two injuries, one on right hand and the other on ear of the complainant, had been observed by the Medical Officer to be result of sharp weapon
Role of giving dagger blows and firing, had been simultaneously assigned to four persons including accused
Three, co-accused, whose role was identical to that of accused had been granted bail, against which no petition for cancellation of bail had been filed, either by the State or complainant
Accused would also be entitled to bail on the principle of consistency
Only ground which prevailed before the Trial Court while declining bail to accused was that in the site plan, the role of fatal dagger blows had been attributed to accused
Such aspect of the case, when no such role, had been given to accused in the report, would by itself make the case of accused arguable for the purpose of bail
Keeping in view the let off, of the complainant, who was in the clutches of four accused, intention of accused to kill, applicability of S.324, P.P.C., was yet to be determined during trial after recording evidence
Punishment of other offences with which accused was charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.- Being unsuccessful before the two courts below to get the concession of bail, petitioner Peer Wahid Shah, through this further petition, seeks the same concession from this Court in case FIR No.413 dated 21.08.2015, registered under sections 324/337-F(ii)/337-A(i)/382/148/149, P.P.C., in Police Station Jungle Khel Kohat wherein he along with co-accused Riaz ud Din, Amjid ud Din and Wajjad ud Din, is charged for attempting at the life of complainant Syed Ajm ud Din by giving him dagger blows and firing at him, as a result, he sustained injuries. A land dispute has been alleged as motive behind the incident.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. It appears from the record that complainant has not sustained any firearm injury. The two injuries, one on right hand and the other on ear of the complainant, have been observed by the medical officer to be result of sharp weapon. The role of giving dagger blows and firing has been simultaneously, assigned to four accused including the petitioner. Three co-accused named above, whose role as per contents of FIR is identical to that of the petitioner have been granted bail by the learned lower court against which no bail cancellation petition has been filed either by the State or complainant, therefore, on the principle of consistency the petitioner would also be entitled to bail. The only ground which prevailed before the learned lower court while declining bail to the petitioner was that in the site plan the role of fatal dagger blows has been attributed to him, but this aspect of the case when no such role fatal has been given to the petitioner in the report, would by itself makes the case of the petitioner arguable for the purpose of bail. Besides, keeping in view the let off, of the complainant who was in the clutches of four accused, intention of the accused to kill/applicability of S.324 P.P.C., is yet to be determined during trial after recording evidence. Punishments of other offence with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., therefore, in the circumstances, I am inclined to exercise the discretion of bail in favour of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Accused/petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with two local, reliable and resourceful sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD concerned. HBT/27/P Bail granted.