2025 PLP 687 (YLR)
Nouman Ali — Petitioner Versus The State — Respondent
| Citation | 2025 PLP 687 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Nouman Ali — Petitioner Versus The State — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 687 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 687 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 687 (YLR) (Nouman Ali — Petitioner Versus The State — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Usman Saleem Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention
Record showed that it was a case of three versions: firstly, as spelt out from the contents of the crime report the complainant was not the eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and she had charged one "MA" on the basis of suspicion, secondly, complainant on 19.07.2024 had recorded her statement under S.164, Cr.P.C, whereby she had charged said "MA" along with present petitioner and, thirdly, the mother of the deceased submitted an application to the local SHO, whereby, she had charged another person
In the given facts and circumstances, which version of the complainant party was true and correct, was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording of pro and contra evidence
At the moment, the case of the accused/petitioner rightly fell within the ambit of further inquiry
In such a situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail than in the jail, during the trial
Accused/petitioner had made out a case for the grant of bail
Accordingly, bail application was allowed, in circumstances.
S. 497
Scope
Whenever a reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail.
S. 497
Scope
Observations recorded in bail order are purely tentative in nature and should in no way prejudice independent mind of Trial Court during the course of trial.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ijaz Khan, J.
This order is directed to dispose of an application filed by the petitioner for grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No. 303 dated: 1 5.07.2024 registered under sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C. read with section 15 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act registered at Police Station KTS, District, Haripur.
2. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for complainant and learned AAG were heard in considerable detail and record perused with their able assistance.
3. At the very outset, it was noted that it is the case of three versions: firstly: as spelling out from the contents of the crime report that the complainant is not the eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and she has charged one Muhammad Ali son of Nazakat on the basis of suspicion. secondly: she on 19.07.2024 has recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C whereby, she has charged said Muhammad All along with present petitioner (Nouman Ali) and thirdly: the mother of the deceased namely Sultan Bibi submitted an application to the local SHO, whereby, she has charged one Qazi Muhammad Arfan, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, which version of the complainant party is true and correct, is to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of pro and contra evidence. At the moment, the case of the accused/petitioner rightly falls within the ambit of further inquiry. In the case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that whenever a reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. In such a situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail then in the jail, during the trial.
4. In the given facts and circumstances the accused/petitioner has made out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and the accused/petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/MOD, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
5. Observations recorded hereinabove are purely tentative in nature and should in no way prejudice an independent mind of learned trial Court during the course of trial. JK/176/P Application allowed.