2017 P Cr (PLP)
NASEEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NASEEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (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: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (NASEEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Shakil Khan Gillani for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd; attempt to commit qatl-i-amd; rioting armed with deadly weapon; common object
Mere abscondence not sufficient to refuse bail
Scope
General role of firing had been attributed to seven accused including the present accused; whereas, as per autopsy report, the deceased had sustained single firearm injury
Two of the injured passersby had not come forward to charge present accused for commission of the offence
Questions, as to common object of the co-accused in commission of the offence and as to whose shot out of the seven accused proved fatal, were yet to be answered by the prosecution during the trial
Court below, while releasing the co-accused, had not differentiated his role from the role of present accused
Rule of consistency made the accused entitled to the concession of bail
Mere abscondence of the accused, when he was otherwise entitled, would not obstruct his way to bail
Bail was allowed accordingly. [Paras. 4 & 5 of the judgment]
S. 497
Bail granting or refusing order of court is always required to be based on sound reasons in light of tentative assessment of the record, and the same is not to be passed in vacuum. [Para. 5 of the judgment]
Art. 189
Decisions of Supreme Court binding on other courts
Scope
Judgments of the Superior Courts under the Constitution are binding upon the subordinate courts in cases having identical facts and circumstances, and any deviation therefrom would frustrate the ends of justice. [Para. 5 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.
Petitioner Naseeb Khan, seeks bail in case FIR No.418 dated 02.09.2007, registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C., in Police Station Mattani, Peshawar wherein he along with co-accused is charged for committing the murder of Shahidullah deceased, with firearm on a motive of previous blood feud. In addition to complainant the incident is stated to have been witnessed by other persons present there.
2. Complainant Zubaid Ullah despite service not in attendance. Perusal of record shows that he also did not turn up before the learned lower court in bail petition of the petitioner, therefore, this petition cannot be kept pending for indefinite period, just to procure the attendance of complainant, who otherwise is not interested to contest the proceedings.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State heard. Record perused.
4. It appears from the record that a general role of firing has been attributed to seven accused including the petitioner, while as per autopsy report, the deceased had sustained single firearm injury. The other two injured passersby have not come forward to charge the petitioner for commission of the offence. It is yet to be determined during trial as whose shot out of the seven accused proved fatal and similarly the question of the common object of the co-accused in the commission of offence is yet to be answered by the prosecution during trial. Co-accused Noor Muhammad, whose role is identical to that of the petitioner has already been released on bail by this court vide order dated 09.07.2015 in Cr. Misc. B.A. No.1137-P/2015, therefore, on the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to concession of bail. Mere abscondence of the petitioner, when otherwise, he is entitled to concession of bail, would not obstruct his way of bail. Guidance in this regard may be derived from case titled, "Qamar alias Mitho v. The State and others" (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 222) 4(sic.) Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Accused/petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds to the tune 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.
5. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to refer to the bail refusing order of the learned lower Court dated 14.10.2015, which being suffering from lack of reasons and against the principles governing the grant and refusal of bail, is a non-speaking order. The learned lower court failed to meet the arguments advanced at the bar, particularly, by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of release of co-accused on bail by this Court, whose role was identical to that of the petitioner. The learned lower court has not differentiated the role of the petitioner from that of the accused released on bail by this Court. For ready reference, the operative part of order of learned lower court is reproduced below:- "The tentative assessment of the case record shows that the accused has directly been nominated in the FIR. The offence carrying capital punishment. The medical report also supports the version of prosecution. There is motive of blood feud enmity between the parties. In view of the above discussion, the accused/petitioner is not held entitled or release on bail, hence bail petition is dismissed". The bail granting or refusing order of a court is always required to be based on sound reasons in light of tentative assessment of the record and not to be passed in vacuum. Similarly, the judgments of the superior Courts under the Constitution are binding upon the subordinate Courts in cases having identical facts and circumstances and any deviation therefrom would frustrate the ends of justice. The Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this court is directed to send copy of this judgment to learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Peshawar for future guidance, as well as learned Sessions Judge, Peshawar, who shall circulate the same among the Additional Sessions Judges, Posted in Peshawar, with intimation to this Court. SL/53/P Bail allowed.