PCRLJ 2016

2016P3059 (PLP)

AFRIDI KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2015-December-4
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2016P3059 (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties AFRIDI KHAN — 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 2016P3059 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016P3059 (PLP)?

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: 2016P3059 (PLP) (AFRIDI KHAN — 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

  • Ishfaq Ahmad Afridi for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, common intention

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Complainant was not the eye-witness of the incident, while, two female alleged eye-witnesses, had specifically assigned the role of firing at the deceased to absconding co-accused

Role of firing had been attributed to absconding co-accused in the site plan

Question of common intention, was a state of mind of an accused, which could not be determined without recording evidence, when accused had not actively participated in the crime

Common intention of accused with the absconding co-accused/principal accused in the commission of offence, was yet to be determined during trial after recording evidence

Participation of accused in the commission of offence, required further probe into his guilt

Bail, could not be refused, merely on the ground that accused was directly charged in the FIR for a heinous offence, when otherwise he was found entitled for concession of bail; because mistaken relief of bail, could be repaired by convicting accused, if proved guilty at the trial, but no proper reparation could be offered for his unjustified incarceration, albeit, his acquittal

Accused, was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.

Petitioner Afridi Khan, seeks bail in case FIR No.530 dated 23.08.2015, registered under section 302/34, P.P.C., in Police Station Sarband, wherein he along with absconding co-accused Mazhar and Inayat is charged for committing the Qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Saqib deceased son of complainant Farash Khan on 23.08.2015 at 18.45 hours near his house with firearm on a motive of land dispute.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. Admittedly, complainant Farash Khan is not the eye-witness of the incident while PW Mst. Gul Shajara and Mst. Shabana the alleged eye-witnesses have specifically assigned the role of firing at the deceased to absconding co-accused Inayat, in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Similar position has also been shown in the site plan where the role of firing has been attributed to absconding co-accused Inayat. The question of common intention is a state of mind of an accused, which cannot be determined without recording evidence, when he has not actively participated in the crime, therefore, in the circumstances common intention of the petitioner with the absconding co-accused/ principal accused in the commission of offence is yet to be determined during trial after recording evidence. At the moment, on tentative assessment of the material available on record, participation of the petitioner in the commission of offence requires further probe into his guilt. It is settled law that bail may not be refused merely on the ground that accused is directly charged in the FIR for a heinous offence, when otherwise, he is found entitled for concession of bail because mistaken relief of bail, can be repaired by convicting the accused, if proved guilty at the trial, but no proper reparation can be offered for his unjustified incarceration, albeit, his acquittal in the long run.

4. For the above reasons, 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/57/P Bail granted.