2010 PLP 1706 (MLD)
MULTAN KHAN — Applicant Versus RIAZ DIN, INSPECTOR/SHO DUAABA POLICE STATION, HANGU and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1706 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MULTAN KHAN — Applicant Versus RIAZ DIN, INSPECTOR/SHO DUAABA POLICE STATION, HANGU and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1706 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1706 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1706 (MLD) (MULTAN KHAN — Applicant Versus RIAZ DIN, INSPECTOR/SHO DUAABA POLICE STATION, HANGU and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/353/34
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7
Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault, possessing arms and act of terrorism
Nothing was on record to suggest that as a result of alleged firing of accused any one of the police officials had sustained any injury
Question as to whether accused had opened fire at the police party was a matter requiring further inquiry, because none of the police officials was alleged to have sustained any injury as a result of his firing
In fact accused had received fire-arm injury as a result of firing of the police party
Role assigned to accused was that of ineffective firing
Recovery of kalashnikov from possession of accused made the offence punishable under S.13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, which was bailable
Bail was granted.
Judgment & Decree
SAID MAROOF KHAN, J.
The petitioner Multan Khan is accused of a case under sections 324/353/34, P.P.C. read with section 7 ATA and under section 13 Arms Ordinance vide F.I.R. No.178 dated 18-5-2009 registered at Police Station Doaba District Hangu. He has filed the instant petition for post arrest bail on the ground that the evidence on record is not connecting him with the commission of offence and he has been falsely involved in the case.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State resisted the bail petition contending that the petitioner along with his co-accused had fired at the police party and that a Kalashnikov along with 15 round of 7.62 bore was also recovered from his possession and, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The charge against the petitioner is that on 18-5-2009 at 1945 hours he along with his co-accused had fired at the police party. However, on the record there is nothing to suggest that as a result of alleged firing of the petitioner any one of the police officials had sustained any injury.
4. The question as to whether the petitioner had opened firing at the police party is a matter requiring further inquiry because none of the police officials is alleged to have sustained any injury as a result of his firing. In fact the petitioner had received fire-arm injury as a result of firing of the police party. The role assigned to the petitioner is that of ineffective firing. The recovery of Kalashnikov from the possession of the petitioner makes the offence punishable under section 13 Arms Ordinance which is bailable. For the above reasons this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate. H.B.T./234/P Bail granted.