2017 PLP 93 (YLRN)
BASHIR BARKAT — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 93 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | BASHIR BARKAT — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 93 (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 93 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 93 (YLRN) (BASHIR BARKAT — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zohaib Riaz Cheema for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 109
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment
Accused was specifically nominated in FIR with specific role of causing injuries
Medical evidence supported the role attributed to accused
Occurrence was day time incident and parties were known to each other and no chance of mistaken identity existed
Weapon of offence was recovered from accused and he was found guilty during investigation
Prosecution witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. fully involved accused in the occurrence
Accused (petitioner) was the one who caused multiple firearm injuries to deceased and others
Delay in trial being due to the conduct of defence, no statutory ground of delay was attracted
Bail was refused. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment] Tariq Javed, District Public Prosecutor for the State along with Azhar Iqbal S.I.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Bashir Barkat has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.11/2013 dated 07.01.2013 under sections 302, 324, 109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Nishtar Colony, District Lahore.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. The petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to deceased as well as to injured P.Ws with his pistol. The role attributed to the petitioner is also born out from postmortem examination of the deceased and MLC of injured. It is a day time occurrence. Parties are known to each other hence, there is no chance of mistaken identity of the petitioner. During investigation weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner. He is found guilty during the investigation. There are statements of P.Ws recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. including, the injured P.Ws involving the present petitioner in this occurrence. There is ample evidence against the petitioner on the file in this case. Petitioner is the sole accused who has caused multiple firearm injuries to the deceased as well as to both the ladies. Hence, no ground for grant of bail on merits.
3. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 24.01.2013 and now almost three years have passed, the trial of the case has not been concluded and the petitioner deserves the concession of bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of trial. In this regard, I may observe here that perusal of the report of learned Trial Court reveals that in this case the statements of four P. Ws. including the complainant have been recorded and the eye-witnesses are continuously appearing before the learned Trial Court on number of dates of hearing but their statements could not be recorded on the request of accused/ petitioner due to non availability of his counsel, hence, no ground for bail is made out even on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.
4. For what has been discussed above, this petition has got no force and the same is hereby dismissed.
5. However, it is clarified that the observation made hereinabove are tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. WA/B-19/L Bail refused.