2017 PLP 113 (YLRN)
MUHAMMAD AYAZ and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 113 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYAZ and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 113 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 113 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 113 (YLRN) (MUHAMMAD AYAZ and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Athar Hussain for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Saleem for Respondents.
- 6. The Dy. Advocate General adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and prayed that bail granting order has been passed without realizing the gravity of offence and its penal consequences, which may be recalled.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 377 & 34
Unnatural offence, common intention
Bail, application for cancellation
Medical evidence did not advance the case of prosecution, rather was at variance with the story reflected in FIR
No ground for cancellation of bail allowed by a Court of competent jurisdiction was available with complainant
Petition for cancellation was dismissed being meritless. [Para. 7 of the judgment] Malik Sher Baz, Dy. A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The respondents/accused were booked for the offence under sections 377/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 13/2016 dated 25-08-2016 registered at Police Station Airport Skardu.
2. They were committed to judicial lock up after necessary investigations and challan of the case as stated by the I.O. has now been presented in the Court, of learned Sessions Judge Skardu.
3. The respondents applied for bail before the learned trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge Skardu accepted their bail petition and allowed bail vide order/judgment dated 18-10-2016, which is now impugned before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submitted at bar that the respondents/accused are directly charged in the FIR with a specific allegation of committing sodomy with the complainant/petitioner, which is a heinous offence and falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Per learned counsel the order of learned trial Court is based on presumptions and bail has been allowed on wrong premises of law.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the honour of a poor labour has been violated and accused/respondents are influential persons, who managed the investigation in their favour being in league with the local police.
6. The Dy. Advocate General adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and prayed that bail granting order has been passed without realizing the gravity of offence and its penal consequences, which may be recalled.
7. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and perusal of record it reveals that after lodging the FIR, the complainant was referred to DHQ Hospital Skardu, where he was medically examined and the medical evidence does not advance the case of prosecution, rather it is at variance with the story reflected in the FIR. The perusal of orders of learned trial Court shows that the order has been passed after due application of mind and when a case becomes one of the further inquiry, the bail is granted to the accused as a matter of right and not as a grace. There are different grounds for cancellation of bail allowed by a Court of competent jurisdiction, which are not available to the complainant in the case.
8. No point of law or fact raised at bar to exercise powers conferred under section 497(5), Cr.P.C, hence the petition is dismissed being meritless. WA/245/GB Petition dismissed.