2019 P Cr (PLP)
MIR ALAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Giglit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MIR ALAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 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 2019 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Giglit-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: 2019 P Cr (PLP) (MIR ALAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Hussain for Petitioner.
- Dy. Advocate-General for the State.
- 4. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is charged directly in the FIR and weapon of offence has been recovered from him and a separate FIR under section 13, A.O. has been registered against him. The offence carries the punishment of 10 years and falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497 & 169
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 34
Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, possessing unlicensed weapon
Exaggerated version of the complainant
Effect
Complainant charged five persons in the FIR out of which two were charged for making fatal shots on both the injured
One of said two accused persons was found innocent during investigation and was released by the police under S. 169, Cr.P.C., which depicted that complainant had not stated the whole truth in the FIR
Where the complainant came forward with a story which during investigation was partially found false and also appeared that the complainant had exaggerated the story and told "half truth" the benefit of the "half lies" would go to the accused not as a matter of grace and/or concession but as a matter of right even at bail stage
Petitioner had been able to make out a case for the concession of bail
Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner sought bail in a case registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 02/2018 dated 03-01-2019 at Police Station City Chilas.
2. The brief facts of the present case as mentioned in FIR have been mentioned in para 02 of the impugned judgment/order dated 15-02-2019, which is re-produced as under:- "Brief facts of prosecution's case as narrated in FIR are that petitioner/accused along with co-accused attempted to commit murder of complainant, father of complainant namely Uthail and Nawaz by opening firing on them. In the occurrence one Nawaz and father of complainant Uthail got bullet injuries. Hence FIR No.02/2019 has been registered against petitioner/accused and other co-accused under sections 337-F and 324/34, P.P.C. in Police Station City Chilas. After recovery of weapon used in offence FIR No.06/2019 has also been registered in Police Station City Chilas under section 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment/order of the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned trial Court has overlooked the important/vital material facts, which resulted into refusal of bail. The learned counsel submitted that in FIR, the petitioner was not charged for opening fire shot on one Uthail and Nawaz, instead Jumazar and Asif were charged for effective firing. One Asif who was charged for effective firing was released under section 169, Cr.P.C., which makes whole of the prosecution case doubtful and one of the further inquiry. The recovery in the given circumstances of the case is also planted and cannot take the case of prosecution any further, as the same has not been sent to Forensic Expert for expert opinion.
4. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is charged directly in the FIR and weapon of offence has been recovered from him and a separate FIR under section 13, A.O. has been registered against him. The offence carries the punishment of 10 years and falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. As evident from the FIR, the complainant charged 5 (five) persons in the FIR, out of which Jumazar and one Asif were charged for opening fatal shots on both the injured. During investigation of the case accused Asif was found innocent and released by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C., which depicts that complainant has not stated "whole truth" in the FIR. Where the complainant comes forward with a story, which during investigation is partially found false by the investigating agency and it also appears that the complainant over exaggerated the story and told "half truth" the benefit of "half lies" will go to the accused not as a matter of grace or concession but as a matter of right even at bail stage.
6. As a result of above discussion the petitioner has been able to make out a case of bail. The petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,0000/- (ten lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. MQ/17/GB Bail allowed.