2012 PLP 265 (SCMR)
Present: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ TALIB JAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 265 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ejaz Afzal Khan and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ TALIB JAN---Petitioner |
| Parties | Present: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ TALIB JAN — 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 2012 PLP 265 (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 2012 PLP 265 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ TALIB JAN---Petitioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 265 (SCMR) (Present: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ TALIB JAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Khan Gara, Advocate Supreme Court and Mir Adam Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner
- Sabitullah Khan Khalil, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Qayyum Sarwar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 2011.
- Miss S. Naz Muhammadzai, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23-9-2011 passed by the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench in Cr. M.B.A. No.365 of 2011).
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34
Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit Qatl-e-amd and abetment
Accused (father) was charged for commanding co-accused (son), who had gone into hiding and had been charged for firing effective shot at the deceased
Whether the role assigned to accused was result of exaggeration to rope him in, so that he may not be at large to pursue litigation; whether accused's stay in the village despite being named in F.I.R. could be held to be more consistent with innocence rather than guilt when co-accused had gone into hiding and whether the role of commanding attributed to accused who himself was armed with Kalashinkov could be held to be ornamental or at par with abetment, were questions calling for further inquiry
Accused's petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowing the same he was admitted to bail. Miss S. Naz Muhammadzai, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of judgment dated 23-9-2011 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby the petitioner in a case registered against him and another under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.431 dated 10-8-2011 in the Police Station of Saddar District Bannu, was declined bail.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the role of commanding the co-accused attributed to the petitioner appears to be a result of exaggeration which is custonlary in this part of the country to rope in even elders of the family so that he may not be at large to pursue the litigation. He next contended that the stay of the petitioner in the village despite being named in the F.I.R., appears to be more consistent with his innocence rather than guilt, therefore, his case becomes arguable for the purpose of bail.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant argued that when the tragedy in this case appears to have been enacted by the absconding co-accused on the command of the petitioner, his role would be that of an abettor, by all means, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of bail.
4. We have gone through the relevant record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Two persons are charged in the F.I.R. Petitioner is charged for commanding his son while the latter, who has gone into hiding, has been charged for firing effective shot at the deceased. Whether the role assigned to the petitioner is a result of exaggeration which, more often than not, is resorted to in this part of the country to rope in even elder of the family so that he may not be at large to pursue the litigation; whether stay of the petitioner in the village despite being named in the F.I.R. could be held to be more consistent with his innocence rather than guilt when his son charged for the effective shot has gone into hiding after the occurrence and whether the role of commanding attributed to a person who himself is armed with a Kalashnikov could be held to be ornamental or at par with abetment, as is contended by the learned counsel for the State, are the questions calling for further inquiry and thus tilt the scales of justice in favour of bail rather than jail.
6. We thus convert this petition into appeal, allow the same and direct the release of the appellant on bail if he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (rupees five lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court who is to ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. M.W.A./T-13/SC Bail granted.