PCRLJ 2010

2010 P Cr (PLP)

SULEMAN BAHADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2nd August 2010
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties SULEMAN BAHADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 P Cr (PLP)?

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 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (SULEMAN BAHADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Anwar-ul-Haq for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324

Attempt to commit qatl- e-amd

Bail, refusal of

Accused remained fugitive from law for a considerable long period of about one year and four months, which had not been plausibly explained which indicated towards guilt of accused

Accused was charged for single injury caused to the complainant and the charge was supported by ocular account

Record further revealed that accused was hardened, dangerous and desperate criminal, because besides the present charge, he was charged in other three F.I.Rs.

Occurrence being of a daylight, no question of mistaken identity would arise

Accused, was declined bail, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.

Accused/petitioner, Suleman Bahadur is charged in case F.I.R. No. 19 dated 16-1-2009 of Police Station City Bannu registered under section 324, P.P.C. and having been refused bail by the courts below, he has filed the application in hand for the same purpose.

2. According to the report of the complainant Danyal Khan lodged in injured condition in the Emergency Room of Civil Hospital Bannu on 16-1-2009 at 1535 hours, he was busy in the purchase of Mobile card from the shop of Ejaz Khan situated in Goushala Bannu City when at about 1500 hours accused Suleman armed with Kalashnikov came, caught hold of him, dragged outside the shop and fired at him with which he was injured on right leg, whereafter the accused decamped from the spot. No motive was given by the complainant for committing the crime by the accused/petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case does not fall under section 324, P.P.C. but under section 337 thereof, therefore, it would not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. According to him the case is based on mala fide.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant and State argued that the accused/petitioner is singularly charged for a single injury sustained by the complainant and that he has remained absconder for a sufficient long and unexplained period, therefore, not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.

5. I have carefully scrutinized record of the case and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The occurrence has taken place on 16-1-2009 and the accused/petitioner has been arrested on 9-5-2010. Thus he has remained fugitive from law for a considerably long period of about one year and .four months which has not been plausibly explained. This indicates towards his guilt. He is charged for single injury caused to the complainant and the charge is supported by ocular account.

7. The record further reveals that the accused/petitioner is a hardened, dangerous and desperate criminal because besides the present charge, he is charged in cases F.I.R. No.716 dated 21-11-2009, F.I.R. No. 717 dated 21-11-2009 and F.I.R. No.367 dated 9-5-2009, copies whereof are available on file. In F.I.R. No. 716, the accused/petitioner is charged for firing on police party. The present occurrence is of a day-light and there is no question of mistaken identity.

8. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is accordingly declined. H.B.T./265/P Bail declined.