SCMR 2022

2022 PLP 198 (SCMR)

SIKANDAR HAYAT — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 1183 of 2021, decided on 1st November, 2021.
Honorable Judges
Maqbool Baqar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2022 PLP 198 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Maqbool Baqar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Parties SIKANDAR HAYAT — 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 2022 PLP 198 (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 2022 PLP 198 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Maqbool Baqar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 198 (SCMR) (SIKANDAR HAYAT — 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

  • Muhammad Fahim Wali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal against the order dated 15.10.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr.Misc (Bail Application) No.3098-P of 2021)

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation levelled against the accused was that he along with four co-accused while armed with firearms launched an attack on the complainant party and due to the fire shots two persons were done to death

However only a general role of firing had been ascribed to the accused and no details had been given as to what kind of weapon the accused had used and on which parts of the body of the deceased, the alleged fire shots made by him landed

From the place of occurrence, 27 empties were taken into possession, which according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) were found to be fired from one and the same weapon

In such circumstances, when the role ascribed to the accused was of general nature and according to the report of FSL only one weapon was used in the commission of the crime, it was the Trial Court who after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the accused and until then the accused could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period

Case of the accused squarely fell within the purview of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and accused was granted post-arrest bail. Shumail Aziz, Additional A.G. and Ziaullah, Inspector for the State.

Judgment & Decree

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.

Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 966 dated 03.08.2021 under sections 302/324/ 148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station University Town, Peshawar, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.

2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused while armed with firearms assaulted on the complainant party and due to the fire shots made by the petitioner, two persons have lost their lives.

3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances of this case. Contends that the prosecution has involved five accused in the present case and the role ascribed to each one of them including the petitioner is of general nature. Contends that the report of the FSL as to empties suggest that they were fired from one and the same weapon and in this view of the matter the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled for the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended the impugned order whereby post-arrest bail has been declined to the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner has been specifically nominated in the crime report with a specific role of firing at the deceased persons and the three natural eye-witnesses are deposing against him, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record with their assistance. As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he along with four co-accused while armed with firearms has launched an attack on the complainant party and due to fire shots made by them two persons have been done to death. However, we have noted that only a general role of firing has been ascribed to the petitioner and no details have been given as to what kind of weapon the petitioner had used and on which parts of the body of the deceased, the alleged fire shots made by him landed. We have also noted that from the place of occurrence, 27 empties were taken into possession, which according to the report of the FSL were found to be fired from one and the same weapon. In this view of the matter, when the role ascribed to the petitioner is of general nature and according to the report of FSL only one weapon was used in the commission of the crime, it is the Trial Court who after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner and until then the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt.

6. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2021. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date. MWA/S-58/SC Bail granted.