2020 PLP 1183 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1183 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, Faisal Arab and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAYAT — 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 2020 PLP 1183 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1183 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Faisal Arab and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1183 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mazullah Barkandi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ms. Ayesha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court along with Raza Raban, SI, Peshawar for the State.
- Hasnain Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against impugned judgment dated 23.4.2020 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr. M. (B.A.) No. 843-P of 2020)
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392
Alleged discrepancy in the actual number of assailants, and flaws attributed to the test identification parade were issues that could not be settled within the restricted scope of tentative assessment of the material collected by the investigating agency
Said issues essentially were to be determined by the Trial Court, on the strength of evidence, yet to be recorded
In the absence of any apparent malice (for false implication of accused), identification of the accused by the witnesses, recovery of the looted articles on the disclosure of accused, and the manner in which the inmates of the house, including children and women were tied at an odd hour of night during the robbery, request of bail by the accused could not be allowed
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and bail was refused to the accused. Ms. Ayesha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court along with Raza Raban, SI, Peshawar for the State. Hasnain Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Aurangezb along with his nephew Intikhab Alam was asleep on 5.2.2020 in his Hujjra situated within the precincts of Police Station Mithra, Peshawar, when at 10:00 p.m. they were surprised by armed intruders; they ostensibly demanded to search the premises so as to apprehend the hiding Talbans and seize their arms; they subdued the inmates including the children after tying them in different rooms and left the scene with the valuables comprising cash, gold ornaments and a vehicle. The complainant extricated himself and lodged report with the police at 10:00 a.m. As the investigation progressed, the petitioner was arrested alongside co-accused; he was identified by the witnesses in a test identification parade; pursuant to disclosure, he led to the recovery of some of the robbed articles.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Alleged discrepancy in the actual number of assailants, stressed at inordinate length is an issue that cannot be settled within the restricted scope of tentative assessment of the material collected by the investigating agency. Similarly, flaws attributed to the test identification parade cannot be attended without undertaking a journey into prohibited territory. These are the issues, essentially to be determined by the trial Court, on the strength of evidence, yet to be recorded. In the absence of any apparent motive, suggestive of malice, identification of the accused coupled with recovery of the looted articles from within the safety of a dwelling at an odd hour of night to the horrors of the inmates that included children and women, we do not feel persuaded in our discretion to allow the request. Petition fails. Leave declined. MWA/M-32/SC Bail refused.