MLD 2016

2016 PLP 1672 (MLD)

WAJAHAT — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2015-November-18
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2016 PLP 1672 (MLD)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties WAJAHAT — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
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 2016 PLP 1672 (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 2016 PLP 1672 (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: 2016 PLP 1672 (MLD) (WAJAHAT — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Abdul Halim Khattak for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302

Qatl-i-amd

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

None was charged in initial report written by Police Officer

Dead body of the deceased remained un-identified till his post-mortem and trial

Father of the deceased, charged accused and co-accused for murder

None had come forward to furnish ocular account of the incident

Father of the deceased, was also not the eye-witness of the occurrence

Accused had not confessed his guilt before the competent court of law

Mere recovery of weapon of offence i.e. stone, without being stained with blood and a pair of chappal, without being identified, in absence of direct or circumstantial evidence, would not be sufficient to reasonably connect accused with the commission of offence; rather evidentiary value of those pieces of evidence, was yet to be determined during trial, in the light of other circumstances and evidence

Case of accused requiring further probe, accused was entitled to concession of bail

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.

Petitioner Wajahat, seeks bail in case FIR No.509 dated 28.06.2015, registered under section 302, P.P.C., in Police Station MRS, Kohat, wherein he along with absconding co-accused Sajid Naseeb and Khamshed is charged for committing the Qatl-e-Amd of deceased Mohib Khan with sharp object.

2. Arguments heard and record gone through.

3. None is charged in initial report written down by Qabil Khan ASI, who on receipt of information qua murder of a person in the fields of Military Dheri form Dhoda road, rushed there, found a human dead body and shifted it to the hospital for postmortem examination. The dead body of the deceased remained un-identified till his post-mortem and burial. Later on, Sikandar Khan father of the deceased on getting information about the factum of recovery of a human body by the police, he went to Police Station where from the record about features of the deceased and his last worn garments taken into possession by the police, he identified the deceased to be his son Mohib Khan, therefore, he charged the present petitioner and co-accused for his murder. None has come forward to furnish the ocular account of the incident. Sinkandar Khan is also not the eyewitness of the occurrence. The source of the basis of which he got satisfied qua complicity of the petitioner in the commission of offence has not been disclosed by him. The petitioner has not confessed his guilt before the competent Court of law. Mere recovery of a weapon of offence i.e. (stone), without being stained with blood, and a pair of chappal, without being identified, allegedly on the pointation of the petitioner, in absence of direct evidence or other strong circumstantial evidence, would not be sufficient to reasonably connect the petitioner with the commission of offence, rather evidentiary value of these pieces of evidence is yet to be determined during trial in light of other strong circumstances / pieces of evidence. At the moment, on tentative assessment the case of the petitioner requires further probe into his guilt, therefore, he is entitled to concession of bail.

4. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Accused/petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- with two local, reliable and resourceful sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD, concerned. HBT/50/P Bail granted.