SCMR 2017

2017 PLP 1932 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 623-L of 2017, decided on 10th May, 2017.
Honorable Judges
Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2017 PLP 1932 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1932 (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 2017 PLP 1932 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1932 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Rai Bashir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11.04.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. No.498-B of 2017)

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, common intention

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Accused was not named in the FIR

About three months after the incident, daughter of one of deceased implicated the accused in her statement recorded by police under S. 161, Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused abetted the murder of her father

Daughter of deceased based her statement implicating the accused on the information imparted to her by two witnesses, however both said witnesses had not assigned any reason for their belated disclosure except that they were frightened

As per said two witnesses, the conspiracy was hatched by the accused at his own dera, whereas one of the co-accused made a confessional statement that the conspiracy was hatched at his (i.e. the co-accused's) dera

No overt act (as far as actual occurrence was concerned) was attributed to the accused by the witnesses or the co-accused

Case of accused was one of further enquiry falling within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Rai Bashir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.-G. and Liaqat, S.-I. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 11.04.2017 whereby his petition for bail after arrest in case FIR No. 297 of 2015, offence under sections 302/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Ferozewala, District Gujranwala, was dismissed.

2. The FIR in this case was got registered by Syed Ghazanfar Ali Gillani. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. It was on 07.12.2015 that Mst. Sidra Batool, the daughter of one of deceased namely Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani implicated the petitioner in her statement recorded by police under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure with the allegation that he (petitioner) abetted the murder of her father and his mureed. She based her statement implicating the petitioner on the information imparted to her by Muhammad Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad. Thereafter, one Muhammad Mansha voluntarily surrendered before police on 26.04.2016 and got recorded his statement under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure before a learned Magistrate on 28.04.2016 wherein he too implicated the petitioner for abetting the murder of two deceased.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.3 and learned Law Officer at some length, and have perused the available record with their assistance.

4. It has been noted by us that this incident took place on 31.08.2015 at 8.00 p.m. and reported to police on the same day at 9.30 p.m. by Syed Ghazanfar Ali Gillani, nephew of one of the deceased namely Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani. Thereafter, on 07.12.2015, statement of Mst. Sidra Batool, daughter of Syed Ghazanfar Ali Gillani, was recorded by police under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure wherein she narrated a different story as against the contents of FIR and alleged that behind the scene abetment was provided by the petitioner and that this fact was disclosed to her by two witnesses namely Muhammad Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad. Consequent thereto, the police recorded the statements of Muhammad Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad on 08.12.2015, wherein they stated that in their presence, the petitioner asked his co-accused to commit the murder of Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani and gave them the assurance to manage the consequences of that murder. However, both the witnesses have not assigned any reason for their belated disclosure of this fact to Mst. Sidra Batool except that they were frightened. Another alleged piece of incriminating evidence against the petitioner is the statement of Muhammad Mansha recorded on 28.04.2016 under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he stated that he and others were sitting in his Dera where petitioner came and instigated him and other co-accused to kill Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani and as a result of that instigation, he along with other co-accused went to the place where the alleged occurrence took place; that he remained outside and the other co-accused went inside to kill Syed Mohsin All Shah Gillani, whereafter they came back. It is surprising to note that as per Muhammad Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad, the conspiracy was hatched by the petitioner at his own Dera, whereas in his statement, Muhammad Mansha disclosed that he and his other co-accused were provoked by the petitioner at his (Mansha's) Dera. There is no overt act (so far as actual occurrence is concerned) attributed to the petitioner in both the aforesaid statements. Considering all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that petitioner's case is one of further enquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed. Appellant Muhammad Iqbal is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MWA/M-33/SC Bail granted.