2003 PLP 1672 (YLR)
GUL SHAD — Petitioner Versus UMERZADA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1672 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J |
| Parties | GUL SHAD — Petitioner Versus UMERZADA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1672 (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 2003 PLP 1672 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1672 (YLR) (GUL SHAD — Petitioner Versus UMERZADA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Waris Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 2003.
- Gul Shad petitioner involved in case F.I.R. No.1114 registered at Police Station, Daggar on 27-12-2002 under section 302/34, P.P.C. at the instance of complainant Umerzada, father of minor Alain Khan, deceased has been refused bail by learned Sessions Judge/Zilla Qazi, Buner vide order dated 23-1-2003. The petitioner has approached this Court with the similar prayer and in support of the bail application it is submitted that on account of the delay of about 45 days in lodging of the report and the presence of reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had no hand in the commission of crime and that, he was falsely implicated, a good case for grant of bail has been made out and the learned lower Court had no valid reasons to decline the concession of bail to the petitioner. The grant of bail has been resisted by learned Deputy Advocate-General assisted by Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, learned counsel for the complainant on, the ground that prosecution is in possession of sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the guilt and mere delay in reporting the matter to the police, per se, is not sufficient to lay foundation for admission of the petitioner to bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Accused had been specifically named in the F.I.R. for taking the life of a minor boy by firing
Medical evidence and statement of brother of the deceased, had fully supported the charge and implicated the accused with the guilt
Mere delay in lodging the F.I.R. which had been plausibly explained, would not entitle the accused to the grant of bail
Accused having not been able to successfully make out a prima facie case for grant of bail, his bail application was rejected. 1996 SCMR 1845 ref. Akhtar Naveed, A.A.-G. for the State. Abdul Latif Afridi for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
1996 SCMR 1845 ref. Waris Khan for Petitioner. Akhtar Naveed, A.A.-G. for the State. Abdul Latif Afridi for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 31st March, 2003. Gul Shad petitioner involved in case F.I.R. No.1114 registered at Police Station, Daggar on 27-12-2002 under section 302/34, P.P.C. at the instance of complainant Umerzada, father of minor Alain Khan, deceased has been refused bail by learned Sessions Judge/Zilla Qazi, Buner vide order dated 23-1-2003. The petitioner has approached this Court with the similar prayer and in support of the bail application it is submitted that on account of the delay of about 45 days in lodging of the report and the presence of reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had no hand in the commission of crime and that, he was falsely implicated, a good case for grant of bail has been made out and the learned lower Court had no valid reasons to decline the concession of bail to the petitioner. The grant of bail has been resisted by learned Deputy Advocate-General assisted by Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, learned counsel for the complainant on, the ground that prosecution is in possession of sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the guilt and mere delay in reporting the matter to the police, per se, is not sufficient to lay foundation for admission of the petitioner to bail.
2. Be that as it may, without highlighting merits of the case I find that petitioner has been specifically named in the F.I.R. for taking the life of a minor boy by firing. The medical evidence and statement of Wazirzada, brother of the deceased, fully support the charge and implicate the petitioner with the guilt. Mere delay in lodging of the F.I.R. which has been, plausibly explained, does not entitle the petitioner for the grant of bail (1996 SCMR 1845). As the petitioner has not been able to successfully make out a prima facie case for grant of bail, his application is rejected and the bail is refused. H.B.T./770/P Bail application rejected.