2017 PLP 156 (YLRN)
SHER JAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 156 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Wazir Shakeel Ahmed and Malik Haq Nawaz, JJ |
| Parties | SHER JAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 156 (YLRN)?
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 156 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Wazir Shakeel Ahmed and Malik Haq Nawaz, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 156 (YLRN) (SHER JAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muazaffar Uddin for Petitioner.
- 5. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General submits that the weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner and trial of the case is in progress and it would be in the interest of justice if necessary directions are issued to the trial Court to conclude trial of the case instead of granting bail to the petitioner, who is involved in heinous offence of murder.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 224
Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6/7
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension, act of terrorism
Accused alleged that he was in judicial lockup for the last five years without any progress in the trial
Co-accused of the present accused with similar role had been released on bail and his case was at par with said co-accused
FIR had been lodged promptly but none was charged therein
Accused was arrested on 5.11.2011 and was still behind the bars without any substantial progress in the trial
Co-accused had been admitted to bail and the case of accused was at par with his co-accused
Principle of consistency was fully attracted in the present case
Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. [Para. 6 of the judgment] Malik Sherbaz, Dy. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner has been booked for the offences under sections 302/324/224, P.P.C. read with sections 6/7 of ATA-1997 vide FIR No. 257/2001 registered at Police Station City Gilgit on 05-09-2011.
2. The petitioner filed first bail application before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 26-11-2014 mainly on the ground that trial of the case has been commenced and accused has confessed his guilt in his confessional statement recorded under section 21-H ATA-1997.
3. The petitioner filed a fresh bail application before trial Court which has again been turned down vide order dated 30-10-2016 and being aggrieved from the said judgment/order, the petitioner has come to this Court in second round for concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contents that accused/petitioner is in judicial lockup since 05-11-2011, without any substantial progress in the trial as there is a long list of prosecution witnesses and only 7 PWs have been examined so far. The learned counsel further submits that co-accused of the petitioner with similar role namely Assadullah has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 23-06-2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 55/2016 and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from co-accused Assadullah and law of consistency is fully attracted in the instant case.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General submits that the weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner and trial of the case is in progress and it would be in the interest of justice if necessary directions are issued to the trial Court to conclude trial of the case instead of granting bail to the petitioner, who is involved in heinous offence of murder.
6. We have heard both the learned counsel of the parties and scanned the record of the case. Though the FIR has been lodged promptly but none is charged in the FIR. The petitioner and his co-accused were arrested in the instant case and during investigations weapon of offence was recovered from his possession. The petitioner was arrested on 05-11-2011 and is still behind the bars without any substantial progress in the trial. Co-accused Assadullah has been admitted to bail by this Court and the case of the petitioner is at par with his co-accused. The law of consistency is fully attracted in the case and we see no justifiable reasons to refuse bail to the petitioner, keeping in view his long detention in jail.
7. In view of above discussion, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000,00/- (Ten lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. File. JK/262/GB Bail granted.