2016 PLP 865 (MLD)
ABDUL KHADI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 865 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL KHADI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 865 (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 865 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court 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 865 (MLD) (ABDUL KHADI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanveer Akhtar Khan for Petitioner.
- Deputy Advocate General for the State.
- 3. I have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General. The learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that rule of consistency applies to the case of petitioner, as his co-accused has been released on bail from this Court. Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379 & 392
Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13
After submission of challan in the Trial Court, case was fixed for framing of charge against accused and his co-accused
Trial Court had adjourned the case five times for framing charge from 25-4-2015 to 29-6-2015
Framing of charge, could not be done only because of request of accused or his counsel
Police had recovered Rs.9000, as part of stolen amount; and one of the stolen cell phone
Accused was government employee
Accused persons were using delaying tactics
Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
Petitioner, who is involved for the offence of Sections 379/392, P.P.C., booked through FIR No.02/2015 and offence under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance, booked through FIR No.03/2015, of Police Station Goner Farm Chilas, District Diamer, seek his release on bail, through this petition. Previously, petitioner sought similar facility from the court of Sessions Judge Diamer, through B.A. No.14/2015, who, through his order dated 02-05-2015, refused to grant the same facility.
2. Police chalked FIR on written application of FIR lodger, Mr. Shah Mirza, an ASI/IP of the police Station Goner Farm. Prior to chalking of FIR, police conducted inquiry under section 157, Cr.P.C. through the FIR lodger. In the light of report of the FIR lodger, as a result of such inquiry, the FIR was chalked, wherein, the FIR lodger reported that the petitioner and his co-accused Ikramullah committed robbery in the mid Highway and robbed Rs.27,000/- besides two cell phones from Mr. Mohammad Aftab Abbasi, a driver of the truck. Through order dated 02-05-2015, the learned Sessions Judge Diamer refused the bail facility to the petitioner and his co-accused. The said co-accused, Ikramullah, filed a bail petition in this Court and obtained bail facility.
3. I have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General. The learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that rule of consistency applies to the case of petitioner, as his co-accused has been released on bail from this Court. Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner.
4. Admittedly, police has submitted challan in the trial court on 14-05-2015 and case has been fixed for framing charge of the petitioner and his co-accused. Admittedly, so far, trial court has adjourned the case fifth time for framing charge of the petitioner and his co-accused from 25-04-2015 to 29-06-2015. The framing of charge could not be done only because of request of the petitioner or his counsel. Per material available on record, police has recovered Rs.9000 as part of stolen amount and one of the stolen cell phone. It is also admitted that petitioner is government employee in Gilgit-Baltistan PWD.
5. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the rule of consistency does not attract and petitioner and his co-accused are willfully using delaying tactics. I, therefore, dismiss this petition. This file be consigned to record. HBT/149/GB Bail petition dismissed.