2020 PLP 1975 (MLD)
SAIF-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1975 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAIF-UR-REHMAN — 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 2020 PLP 1975 (MLD)?
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 2020 PLP 1975 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1975 (MLD) (SAIF-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahbaz Ali for Petitioner.
- Dy. Advocate-General for the State.
- 4. The learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it was a day light occurrence. The petitioner is directly charged in the FIR for opening fire shot on the victim. Weapon of offence has also been recovered from the petitioner on his pointation. There is prima facie case against the petitioner and he is not entitled for the concession of bail. Lastly that the ground of minority was not raised in the bail petition submitted before the learned trial Court, hence the learned trial judge rightly rejected the plea of minority. They relied on 2012 SCMR 1400, PLD 2012 Lahore 433, 2006 PCr.LJ 1450 and 1999 MLD 1526.
- 5. The school leavening certificate of the petitioner shows his date of birth 01-01-2006, hence his age becomes about 13 years and 08 months. The contention of the learned Dy. Advocate General that the ground of minority was not mentioned in the bail petition submitted before learned Additional Sessions was rightly not considered is not tenable. Any ground if not mentioned in bail petition could be raised/argued at the time of arguments, the exception is that opposite party should not be taken in surprise. It was not the case of prosecution before the learned trial Court that the certificate is forged or fabricated, without going into merits of the case, the petitioner is allowed bail on the grounds of minority as his case falls within the ambit of section 497(1) Cr.P.C., provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500000/- (five lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F & 109
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah and abetment
Accused, under the age of sixteen years
Scope
Accused was alleged to have attempted at the life of the complainant's brother
School leaving certificate of the accused showed his date of birth as 13 years and 08 months
Prosecution had not alleged that the certificate was forged or fabricated
Bail was allowed on the ground of minority as the case of accused fell within the ambit of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner Saif-ur-Rehman seeks bail in the offences under sections 324, 337-F/109 P.P.C. vide FIR No.25/2019 dated 27-07-2019 registered at Police Station Juglote.
2. The brief facts of the case have been highlighted in para 2 of the impugned judgment, which are re-produced as under:- "Brief facts of prosecution's case according to FIR are that petitioner/accused on instigation of his father namely Muhammad Younus opened fire on victim Masood Alam with intent to murder him and caused hurt him. Hence on written application of victim who is brother of victim, FIR No.25/2019 has been registered in Police Station Juglote Gilgit under sections 324, 337-F and 109 P.P.C."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a school going boy and his age is hardly about 13 years. The petitioner opened a single fire on the victim and did not repeat the same, which shows that there was no intention to kill. Per learned counsel the fire shot opened by the petitioner landed on non vital part of the body. The attraction of section 324 P.P.C. need further inquiry and the petitioner be admitted to bail till disposal of the main case. The learned counsel relied on 2007 PCr.LJ 762 and 1994 PCr.LJ 1102.
4. The learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it was a day light occurrence. The petitioner is directly charged in the FIR for opening fire shot on the victim. Weapon of offence has also been recovered from the petitioner on his pointation. There is prima facie case against the petitioner and he is not entitled for the concession of bail. Lastly that the ground of minority was not raised in the bail petition submitted before the learned trial Court, hence the learned trial judge rightly rejected the plea of minority. They relied on 2012 SCMR 1400, PLD 2012 Lahore 433, 2006 PCr.LJ 1450 and 1999 MLD 1526.
5. The school leavening certificate of the petitioner shows his date of birth 01-01-2006, hence his age becomes about 13 years and 08 months. The contention of the learned Dy. Advocate General that the ground of minority was not mentioned in the bail petition submitted before learned Additional Sessions was rightly not considered is not tenable. Any ground if not mentioned in bail petition could be raised/argued at the time of arguments, the exception is that opposite party should not be taken in surprise. It was not the case of prosecution before the learned trial Court that the certificate is forged or fabricated, without going into merits of the case, the petitioner is allowed bail on the grounds of minority as his case falls within the ambit of section 497(1) Cr.P.C., provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500000/- (five lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. SA/130/GB Bail granted.