2010 PLP 688 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 688 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Attaullah Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 688 (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 2010 PLP 688 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Attaullah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 688 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gohar Zaman Khan Kundi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st December, 2009.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34
Qatl-i-amd
F.I.R. had been lodged after twenty minutes of the occurrence, wherein accused was directly charged for committing the offence
Ocular evidence, prima facie had connected accused with the commission of the crime--Cross-case alone was not sufficient for making a case for bail in presence of ocular evidence and other material available on file
Prima facie, case having been made out against accused, his bail petition was dismissed. Sanaullah Shamim Gandapur, Dy. A.-G. for the State. Saleemullah Khan Ranazai for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.
Muhammad Yaqoob, accused/petitioner, involved in case F.I.R. No.209 dated 15-9-2009 of Police Station Domail registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. having been refused bail by the Courts below has filed the application in hand for the same purpose.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is a cross-case registered by the accused party vide F.I.R. No.210 of the same date under sections 324/34, P.P.C. which fact is also evident from the bail petition moved in this Court by the accused in that case and thus the petitioner is entitled to bail. He argued that the abscondence of the petitioner may be ignored in view thereof.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and State took the plea that cross-case is no ground for bail if the case is otherwise not fit for bail and that the plea of cross-version taken in the bail petition of those accused is not admissible so as to be made basis for release of an accused on bail.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and Perused the record.
5. A look at the F.I.R. would reveal that it has been lodged after twenty minutes of the occurrence which took place at 1100 hours, wherein the petitioner is directly charged for committing the offence. The record further reveals that the there is ocular evidence which prima facie connects the petitioner with the commission of the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to make the case for bail on pointing out the comparison of contents of the present F.I.R. with the site plan, but any observations made at this moment thereon would amount the deep appreciation of evidence which is not permissible at bail stage. Moreover, the cross-case alone is not sufficient for making a case for bail in presence of ocular evidence and other materials available on file.
6. The other aspect of the case that the complainant while applying for bail to this Court has taken the plea of cross-case but again in that petition the injury sustained by the victim was alleged to be self-inflicted/concocted in order to ward off the effect of the instant case. Therefore, a prima facie case exists against the accused/petitioner and, therefore, I find no substance in this application which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./18/P Bail refused.