PCRLJ 2013

2013 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHZEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2013-January-4
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2013 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties SHAHZEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — 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 2013 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 2013 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: 2013 P Cr (PLP) (SHAHZEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Khurshid Azhar for Petitioner.
  • Muhammad Nawaz Khan Swati, A.A.-G. and Malik Khalid for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/34

Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13

Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, common intention, possession of illegal weapons

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Infliction of injury on non-vital part of body

Non-repetition of fire

Case of cross-versions

Negative report of firearm expert

Effect

Accused was alleged to have fired at the complainant, which hit him on his thigh

Only a single fire shot was attributed to accused, hitting complainant on his left thigh, which was a non-vital part of the body

No bone of complainant had been fractured

Accused did not repeat fire even though he had sufficient time and complainant was at his mercy

Question as to whether S.324, P.P.C. could be invoked in such circumstances was a question which could be resolved by the Trial Court after considering the relevant evidence

Accused had recorded a cross-version of the incident with the police

Firearm expert had given a negative report regarding the weapon and empties recovered from the spot

Case of further inquiry was made out

Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.

Shahzeb Khan seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.348 dated 22-10-2012 for offences chargeable under section 324/34 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 read with section 13, A.O. registered in Police Station Sarai Saleh, District Haripur.

2. The case of the prosecution, as set up in the F.I.R., is that the complainant Sher Khan so of Karam Khan on 22-10-2012 at 14.10 hours, in injured condition, reported to the police in Emergency Ward, DHQ Hospital, Haripur that Shahzeb son of Aurangzeb had installed a drain on the roof of his house, as a result, the water was falling inside the courtyard of his house; that at about 01.30 hours he along with his son Jameel was closing the said drain on the roof, when Aurangzeb son of Karam Khan came there and he caught hold of him and his son Shahzeb fired at him with the pistol, as a result, he was hit at his left thigh and became injured; that there was no other motive for the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the injuries sustained by the complainant were on non-vital part of his body, and no bone was found fractured by the Medical Officer hence section 324, P.P.C. was not applicable in the case that there is a cross version of the present petitioner recorded vide Madd No.17 dated 22-10-2012; and that the investigation is complete and the accused petitioner is no more required to the police for further investigation; that that the report of the firearms expert regarding the pistol allegedly used in the crime was in negative. Learned counsel of the petitioner placed reliance on 1996 SCMR 1845 and 2011 PCr.LJ 1635.

4. Conversely, learned A.A.-G. and learned private counsel for complainant argued that the accused petitioner was directly charged in a promptly lodged F.I.R. with specific role of effective firing at the complainant; that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence have duly supported the version of the complainant; and that the medical evidence also in consonance with the version of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant in support of his submissions relied on 2011 YLR 191 and 2011 YLR 2736.

5. The Valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner heard and the available record of the case thoroughly considered.

6. On tentative assessment of the material available on record, only single fire shot is attributed to the accused petitioner, which hit the injured complainant on left thigh, a non-vital part of the body. As per report of the Medical Officer, no bone has been fractured. Moreover, the accused petitioner did not repeat the overt act to its extreme, although the complainant was at his mercy. Thus, in view of the locale of injuries and sufficient time to repeat the firing, whether section 324, P.P.C. can be invoked or not is a question, which can only be resolved by the trial Court after taking into consideration the relevant evidence to be recorded in this respect. Moreover, there is a cross-version recorded in Madd No.17 dated 22-10-2012 by the present petitioner. Similarly, the Firearms Expert has given a negative report regarding the pistol and the empties recovered from the spot. Hence, 'prima facie', a case of 'further inquiry' is made out in favour of the petitioner, as envisaged in subsection (2) of section 497 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

7. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application for post arrest bail of the petitioner is allowed and petitioner Shahzeb is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 (One Hundred Thousands) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Haripur, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. These are the detailed reasons for short order of this Court dated 4-1-2013. MWA/23/P Bail granted.