2018 P Cr (PLP)
WAQAR AHMED and 2 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WAQAR AHMED and 2 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 P Cr (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 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 P Cr (PLP) (WAQAR AHMED and 2 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jehanzeb Khan for Petitioners.
- Dy. Advocate-General for the State.
- 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State hotly contested the petition and stated with vehemence that it was a day light occurrence, wherein the accused are directly charged in the FIR for commission of offence. The accused trespassed into the house of complainant duly armed with deadly weapons, where they injured not only the complainant but also took life of an innocent lady Mst. Robina. The offence falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further that recoveries have also been effected from the accused. The statements of PWs recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. are quite in line with the story narrated in the FIR. The learned Assistant Advocate General prays that the accused/petitioners committed a heinous offence and they does not deserve the concession of bail. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on 2005 YLR 293.
- 6. Before pointing with judgment, I want to record my words of appreciation for Mr. Muhammad Saleem Khan, advocate the counsel for the complainant, who addressed and assisted the Court in a proper and appreciable manner and cited pro and contra law cases which shows his professionalism and his efforts are highly appreciated.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 337-F(5), 452 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing Hashimah, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint
Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage though was not permissible, but a tentative assessment of the material collected during investigation, could be assessed to form an opinion regarding existence of a prima facie case or otherwise
Investigating Officer, recorded statement of one under S.161, Cr.P.C., as an eye-witness of the occurrence and of the same day another statement of that prosecution witness was available on record and both the statements were at variance and mutually destructive
Name of said witness did not reflect in the FIR
Injuries on the injured person reflected that those had been caused on non-vital parts of the bodies of the injured and had not been declared either grievous or dangerous to life
Case of co-accused was distinguishable from the case of accused who committed the murder of the deceased by opening fire shots with .30 bore pistol; there existed a prima facie case against him
Bail petition of accused was declined, whereas co-accused was allowed bail. [Para. 5 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought bail after arrest in FIR No.03/2017 dated 05-01-2017 under sections 302/324/337-F(v)/452/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Juglot, District Gilgit.
2. Precisely the facts as narrated in the FIR by complainant Samiullah son of Mohibullah are that on 05-01-2017 at about 13:30 hours the accused petitioners trespassed in to the house of complainant and besides injuring him one of the accused namely Waqar Ahmed murdered a lady Mst. Robina by opening fire Shot on her with a .30 bore pistol.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that the accused/petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case after deliberation and consultation. The learned counsel further argued that it was a sudden fight between the parties without any motive. No impartial and independent witnesses have been cited in the FIR. Per learned counsel no recovery has been effected from the possession of petitioner No. 3, while fake recoveries have been planted on petitioner/accused Nos. 1 and 2, thus the case is one of the further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel relied on 2017 MLD 44, 2017 MLD 183, 2017 PCr.LJ 1718 and 2017 PCr.LJ Note 17.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State hotly contested the petition and stated with vehemence that it was a day light occurrence, wherein the accused are directly charged in the FIR for commission of offence. The accused trespassed into the house of complainant duly armed with deadly weapons, where they injured not only the complainant but also took life of an innocent lady Mst. Robina. The offence falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further that recoveries have also been effected from the accused. The statements of PWs recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. are quite in line with the story narrated in the FIR. The learned Assistant Advocate General prays that the accused/petitioners committed a heinous offence and they does not deserve the concession of bail. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on 2005 YLR 293.
5. The arguments of both the parties heard and record of the case has been perused. Although deeper appreciation of evidence at bail is not permissible, however a tentative assessment of the material collected during investigation may be assessed to form an opinion regarding existence of a prima facie case or otherwise. The perusal of record shows that I.O. of the case recorded statement of one Khushal son of Mir Sallah under section 161, Cr.P.C. as an eye-witness of the occurrence on 16-03-2017 and on the same day another statement of this PW is available on record, and both these statements are at variance and mutually destructive. Name of this PW is not reflected in the FIR. With the able assistance of both the parties, the injury sheets of injured namely Samiullah son of Mohibullah, Ehsanullah son of Muhibullah and Tufail Ahmed have been examined, which reflects that the injuries have been caused on non-vital part of the bodies of the injured and have not been declared either grievous or dangerous to life. The case of the petitioner No. 2 namely Ilaj Azam and petitioner No. 3 namely Zafar-ul-Haq is distinguishable from the case of the co-accused Waqar Ahmed, who committed the murder of Mst. Robina by opening fire shots with a .30 bore pistol and the weapon of offence has been recoveted from his possession. A separate FIR has been registered against him under section 13, A.O. There exists a prima facie case against him. Bail petition up to his extent is declined. Petitioners namely Ilaj Azam and Zafar-ul-Haq sons of Abdul Jalil are allowed bail subject to their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
6. Before pointing with judgment, I want to record my words of appreciation for Mr. Muhammad Saleem Khan, advocate the counsel for the complainant, who addressed and assisted the Court in a proper and appreciable manner and cited pro and contra law cases which shows his professionalism and his efforts are highly appreciated.
7. The Criminal Miscellaneous No. 86/2017 is disposed of in the above terms. HBT/201/GB Order accordingly.