2017 PLP 279 (SCMR)
QURBAN ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 279 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ |
| Parties | QURBAN ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — 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 279 (SCMR)?
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 279 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 279 (SCMR) (QURBAN ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Agha Abul Hassan Arif, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Naseer ud Din Khan Nayyar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13.05.2016 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 3063-B of 2016)
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly
Incident occurred due to previous enmity between the parties
Although three persons from the complainant side lost their lives, yet two persons from the accused side also sustained injuries
Accused had not been attributed any overt act during the occurrence except the role of raising 'lalkara'
Trial Court in such circumstances had to determine, after recording pro and contra evidence, whether the accused was vicariously liable for the acts of his co-accused
Case against accused was one of further enquiry
Accused was an old man and was behind bars since about 15 months
Accused was allowed bail accordingly.
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148 & 149
Criminal antecedents of accused
List of different criminal cases registered against the accused and his co-accused persons was placed on record by the complainant
Supreme Court observed that it was only seized of the present bail application filed by the accused and the effect/impact of the previous criminal record against accused and his co-accused was not relevant for disposing of the present bail petition
Accused was granted bail accordingly. Naseer ud Din Khan Nayyar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.-G. and Asghar Ali, S.I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.
This petition is barred by one day. In the interest of justice, delay in filing the criminal petition is condoned.
2. Petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No.611 dated 04.11.2014, offences under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Muridkey, District Sheikhupura.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Law Officer at some length and perusing the available record with their assistance, we have noted that this FIR has two parts. In the first part, altercation took place between Awais (from complainant side) and Aadil and Ehsan (from the accused side). It is mentioned in the FIR that Awais, Aadil and Ehsan grappled with each other and during this Awais snatched Kalashnikov from Aadil. During the scuffle, the Kalashnikov went off and fires hit Adil and Ehsan (from the accused side). In the second part, it is mentioned that when the complainant party was about to shift injured Awais in the car, petitioner along with his co-accused duly armed reached there and raised lalkara not to spare Rana Saleh and his sons and to avenge old enmity. It is very much clear from the FIR that the unfortunate incident occurred due to previous enmity between the parties which goes back to the year 1987. Although three persons from the complainant side lost their lives, yet two persons from the accused side namely Adil and Ehsan also sustained injuries. The petitioner Qurban has not been attributed any overt act during the occurrence except the role of raising lalkara. In the circumstances of the case, it is for the learned trial Court to determine, after recording evidence pro and contra, whether the petitioner is vicariously liable for the acts of his co-accused. So far as the list of different criminal cases placed on record by the learned counsel for the complainant through C.M.A. No. 486-L of 2016 registered against the accused side in general and petitioner Qurban Ali in particular is concerned, suffice it to observe, at this stage, this Court is only seized of the instant bail application and the effect/impact of the aforesaid criminal record against petitioner and his co-accused is not relevant for disposing of the instant petition. In this backdrop, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further enquiry falling within the purview of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is an old man and is behind the bars since 24.05.2015.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed. Consequently, Qurban Ali petitioner is allowed bail after arrest (in the cited FIR), subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only), with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MWA/Q-3/SC Bail granted.