2016 PLP 2443 (YLR)
IKHTIAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 2443 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Assadullah Khan Chamkani, J |
| Parties | IKHTIAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 2443 (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 2016 PLP 2443 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Assadullah Khan Chamkani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 2443 (YLR) (IKHTIAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sahibzada Riazatul Haq for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Saeed Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th December, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention
Role of firing at the deceased, had been specifically attributed to absconding co-accused
Only role attributed to accused persons was that they while aiming their weapons at the complainant, warned him not to move; and later on when the complainant tried to apprehend absconding co-accused after murder of his son, accused persons opened fire at the complainant which proved ineffective
Accused persons, having not actively participated in the murder of the deceased, their common intention with the principal absconding co-accused; as well as their intention to kill the complainant, who was at their mercy, was yet to be determined during trial after recording evidence, which had made the case of accused persons arguable for the purpose of bail
Bail, could not be refused merely on the ground that accused was directly charged in the FIR for a heinous offence; otherwise, accused were found entitled to the concession of bail; because mistaken relief of bail, could be repaired by convicting accused, if proved guilty at the trial, but no proper reparation could be offered for their unjustified incarceration, albeit, their acquittal in the long run
Case of bail having been made out on merits, mere absconsion of accused persons, could not be a ground for refusal of bail
Accused, were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Mitho Pitafi v. The State 2009 SCMR 299 rel. Waqar Ahmad, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.
Petitioners
1. Ikhtiar
2. Kashif and
3. Gul Muhammad, seek bail in case FIR No.274 dated 16.08.2014, registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C., in Police Station Regi wherein they along with absconding co-accused Imtiaz are charged for committing the murder of Nishad Khan on 16.08.2014 at 15.30 hours inside the Baithak of complainant Taza Khan, with firearms.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Admittedly, the role of firing at the deceased has been specifically attributed to absconding co-accused Imtiaz. The only role attributed to present petitioners is that they while aiming their weapons at the complainant warned him not to move, and later on, when the complainant tried to apprehend absconding co-accused Imtiaz after murder of his son, the petitioners opened fire at the complainant, but it proved ineffective. On tentative assessment of the material the petitioners have not actively participated in the murder of the deceased, therefore, their common intention with the principal absconding co-accused as well as their intention to kill the complainant who was at their mercy is yet to be determined during trial after recording evidence, which makes the case of the petitioners arguable for the purpose of bail. It is settled law that bail may not be refused merely on the ground that accused are directly charged in the FIR for a heinous offence, when otherwise, they are found entitled to the concession of bail because mistaken relief of bail, can be repaired by convicting the accused, if proved guilty at the trial, but no proper reparation can be offered for their unjustified incarceration, albeit, their acquittal in the long run. As on merits, case of bail has been made out, therefore, mere absconsion of the petitioners cannot be a ground for refusal of bail in light of ratio of judgment of the apex Court in case titled, "Mitho Pitafi v. The State" 2009 SCMR 299.
4. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed. Accused/petitioners are admitted to bail provided each one of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum 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/56/P Bail granted.