2010 PLP 1496 (YLR)
LAL ZAMEEN — Applicant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous (Bail Application)
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1496 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J |
| Parties | LAL ZAMEEN — Applicant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous (Bail Application) |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1496 (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 1496 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1496 (YLR) (LAL ZAMEEN — Applicant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous (Bail Application)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bakht Nawaz Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th December, 2009.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/148/149
Attempt to commit qatl-i amd
Five persons were charged for effectively firing on the person of the complainant to commit his qatl-i amd; and recovery of empties of different weapons were also made from the spot
No specific rule of criminal dispensation of justice could be framed which could be applied to each and every case
Each case had to be seen in its own facts and circumstances
In the present case accused was arrested after about 5 months of the occurrence and such abscondance had not been fully explained on the record
Accused remained absconder and waited till the acquittal of other accused
For bail matters, such abscondance could not be left unnoticed as fugitive from the law and courts would lose some of normal rights; and privileges granted by the procedural as well as substantive law
Un explained noticeable abscondance would be sufficient for the refusal of bail to accused; and acquittal per se of the co-accused in the case would not be a sufficient ground for the release of accused on bail
Bail application was dismissed in circumstances
Trial Court, however, was directed to conclude the trial of the case within a shortest possible span of time. 2005 PCr.LJ 748 and 2006 PCr.LJ 184 rel. Akhtar Naveed, A.A.-G. for the State. Astagferullah for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.
The accused/petitioner has applied for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.108 dated 24-4-2003, registered under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C., Police Station Barawal, District Upper Dir, whereby the present accused/petitioner along with four others were charged for effectively firing on the person of complainant with the intention to commit qatl-e-amd. The motive for the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. was previous enmity between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.A:-G. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant were heard at some length and the case file perused with their assistance.
3. No doubt, that five persons were charged for effectively firing on the person of the complainant to commit his qatl-e-amd and recovery of empties of different weapons were also made from the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no specific role was attributed to any of the accused. There was sufficient delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and medical report was in contravention of the version given in the F.I.R. He further submitted that one accused was acquitted of the charges by the learned trial Court on 4-6-2008, whereas the other three co-accused were acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. and he made reliance on case-law on the plea of rule of consistency, further inquiry and mere absconsion would not be sufficient to refuse the concession of bail and the injuries received on the person of the complainant were not on vital part of the body. Whereas, he was unable to explain the un-reasonable and un-explained absconsion of the accused/petitioner. Reliance placed on 2005 PCr.LJ 748 and 2006 PCr.LJ 184.
4. In the criminal dispensation of justice, no specific rule can be framed which could be applied to each and every case and each case has to be seen in its own facts and circumstances. The present occurrence took place in April, 2003, whereas, the accused/petitioner was arrested on 21-8-2009 and such absconsion has not been fully explained on the record. The accused/petitioner remained absconder and waited till the acquittal of other accused. For bail matters, such absconsion cannot be left un-noticed as fugitive from the law and Courts looses some of normal rights and privileges granted by the procedural as well as substantive law. Un explained noticeable absconsion would be sufficient for the refusal of the bail to the accused / petitioner and acquittal per se of the co-accused in the case would not be a sufficient ground for the release of accused on bail. So, the instant bail application is dismissed in the circum stances of the case.
5. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a shortest possible span of time but not later than three months, other-wise the accused would be at liberty to move a fresh application for release on bail. H.B.T./85/P Bail refused.