2017 PLP 921 (YLR)
ZAFAR ABBAS and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 921 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Aslam Javed Minhas, J |
| Parties | ZAFAR ABBAS and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 921 (YLR)?
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 921 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Aslam Javed Minhas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 921 (YLR) (ZAFAR ABBAS and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Mansoor Ahmad Bokhari for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 201 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
Allegation against accused persons was that they, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of the sister of complainant, who was second wife of one of accused persons
Accused persons were named in the FIR with specific role of murder
Accused persons had confessed before the Police and three prosecution witnesses as to where they murdered the deceased; where they hid the dead body and then thrown the same in the river
Strong, complete and incriminating material, was available on the Police record to connect accused persons with the commission of alleged offence in the shape of blood stained sacks vide recovery memo, mobile phone of the deceased, and blood stained clothes of the deceased
No reason existed for the complainant to falsely implicate accused persons with the commission of crime
Offence with which, accused persons were charged, fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C., which entailed capital punishment
Challan had been submitted in the Trial Court, where charge had been framed
Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Deputy Prosecutor General. Zafar Khan Puniyan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM JAVED MINHAS, J.
The petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No.183/14 dated 31.12.2014, offence under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Rangpur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of the sister of complainant.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioners are named in the FIR with specific role of murder of woman folk (sister of the complainant). The deceased was the second wife of the petitioner No.1, who was already married and whose children from the first wife were unhappy with the second marriage of their father with Mst. Zareena Mai, deceased. Further, when the dead body was recovered, it could not be identified and the accused persons, after committing the murder, thrown the same in the river. The accused persons confession their guilt before the police as well as three prosecution witnesses that they had murdered the deceased. The petitioners also made confessional statements that where they murdered Mst. Zareena, where they hid the dead body and then thrown the same in the river. This strong, ample and incriminating material is available on the police record to connect the petitioners-accused with the commission of alleged offence in the shape of blood-stained sacks vide recovery memo dated 23.01.2015, mobile phone of Mst. Zareena, deceased and blood-stained clothes of the deceased which were got recovered by Aun Abbas, petitioner No.2. The offences, with which, the petitioners are charged, fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of Cr.P.C. and entail capital punishment. No reason exists for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioners with the commission of crime. Challan has been submitted in the learned trial Court, where the charge has been framed and the case is hampering adjudication at the stage of prosecution evidence.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this court is not inclined to allow the petition in hand. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra did not effect the case of either party. HBT/Z-18/L Bail refused.