YLR 2010

2010 PLP 899 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD SHOAIB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Petition No.393 of 2009, decided on 14th December, 2009.
Honorable Judges
Attaullah Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 899 (YLR)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members Attaullah Khan, J
Parties MUHAMMAD SHOAIB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 899 (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 2010 PLP 899 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Attaullah Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 899 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHOAIB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Ghulam Muhammad Sappal for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing. 14th December, 2009.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/201/109/148/149-Qatl-i-amd and causing disappearance of evidence of offence

Bail, grant of

Nobody had been charged in the report

Complainant had expressed that he had no enmity with anyone

Later on, in the supplementary statement, the complainant had charged the accused

Record had revealed that no ocular evidence was available to connect accused with the offence--Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded three days after the occurrence and said delay in recording the supplementary statement was not fully explained

Supplementary statement was not believable because in the earlier report, no motive had been given by the complainant, whereas in such supplementary statement motive was also given

Accused was in jail for sufficient time

Despite remaining in the Police custody, nothing incrimi nating had been recovered from accused nor he had made any confession

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Sanaullah Shamim Gandapur, A.A.-G. for the State. Muhammad Waheed Anjum for the Complainant.

Judgment & Decree

ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.

Accused-petitioner Muhammad Shoaib has applied for bail after failing to avail it from the lower fora. He is charged under sections 302/201, 109/148/149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.172 dated 9-8-2008 of Police Station Yarik, District D.I. Khan.

2. According to the report of Ghulam Abbas complainant, he had reported about the missing of one Mashal Khan on the morning of 9-8-2009. Later on his son informed him about some blood-stained earth on the spot. He along with his son went there and the blood-stained spots led them to a place where a human body was buried and one of his hand was outside it. Later on police was informed and on their arrival, the dead body was dug out and it was found to be that of Mashal Khan.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. In the report, nobody has been charged. It is also expressed by the complainant that he has no enmity with anyone. Later on, in the supplementary statement the complainant charged the accused. The record reveals that there is no ocular evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence. The occurrence took place between the night of 6/7-8-2008 and it is on 10-8-2008 when the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded in which the accused has been nominated and the motive also given. This statement is not believable because in the earlier report, no motive has been given by the complainant. Moreover, the petitioner Muhammad Shoaib is in Jail for sufficient time. The story narrated in the supplementary statement prima facie is not believable. The delay in recording the supplementary statement is not fully explained. In spite of remaining in police custody, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the petitioner nor he has made any confession.

5. For the above reasons, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate. H.B.T./16/P Bail granted.