2018 PLP 1916 (YLR)
ZAMEER KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 PLP 1916 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | ZAMEER KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 1916 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 1916 (YLR)?
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: 2018 PLP 1916 (YLR) (ZAMEER KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Khaliq for Petitioner.
- 4. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the bail petition with vehemence and submitted that the petitioner is directly charged in the FIR and weapon of offence has been recovered from his possession and FIR No.02/2016 has been registered under section 13 A.O. which is an incriminatory piece of evidence. There is a prima facie case against the accused/petitioner and he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 427 & 34
Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13
Qatl-i-amd, mischief, common intention, possessing unlicensed arms
Prosecution story was that accused committed murder of two persons by opening fire shots with lethal arms
Accused was directly charged in the FIR for opening fire shots on both the deceased
Presence of accused had been shown in the site plan
Eye-witnesses had fully implicated the accused for commission of offence
Weapon of offence had been recovered from the possession of accused
Prima facie case was made out against the accused and he was not entitled for concession of bail
Accused was refused bail accordingly.
S. 497
Principle
Court, at bail stage, could not travel beyond the scope of tentative assessment of evidence available with the prosecution. Malik Sher Baz, Dy. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner along with five other (absconding accused) were booked for double murder of one Sherdi Jan son of Sher Aman and Asgar Khan son of Samsar resident of Pharouri on 08-03-2016 by opening fire shots with lethal arms. The complainant Wali Khan son of Saeed Rehman lodged FIR No.01/2016 under sections 302, 427, 34, P.P.C. dated 08-03-2016 which was registered at Police Station Ghabar Tangir, District Diamer.
2. The petitioner was arrested in the instant case while the remaining accused are still at large. The petitioner applied for post arrest bail in the trial Court which was refused vide order dated 05-05-2016 and being dissatisfied from the above order, the petitioner has come to this Court for concession of bail.
3. The learned counsel for the parties submits that there is a delay of one hour in lodging the FIR and this delay has been consumed in tailoring a false and fabricated story. The learned counsel further submitted that as evident from the contents of FIR and the statement of eye-witnesses namely Azad Khan and Abdul Hai, indiscriminate firing was opened by the assailants but no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner which makes the case as one of further enquiry.
4. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the bail petition with vehemence and submitted that the petitioner is directly charged in the FIR and weapon of offence has been recovered from his possession and FIR No.02/2016 has been registered under section 13 A.O. which is an incriminatory piece of evidence. There is a prima facie case against the accused/petitioner and he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard both the parties at length and have also gone through the available record. The petitioner is directly charged in the FIR for opening fire shot on both the deceased who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The presence of accused has been shown in the site plan and the eye-witnesses whose names find mention in the FIR have fully implicated the accused for commission of the offence charged against him. The weapon of offence has also been recovered from the possession of petitioner and a separate case in this regard has also been registered against the petitioner. The points raised at bar by learned counsel for the petitioner will be answered by the prosecution at the time of trial and at this stage this Court cannot travel beyond the scope of tentative assessment of evidence available with the prosecution. There is a prima facie case against the accused and he is not entitled for concession of bail.
6. The result of above discussion is that the petition is dismissed being meritless. JK/238/GB Bail refused.