2020 PLP 59 (YLRN)
WAJID ALI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 59 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Ali Baig, J |
| Parties | WAJID ALI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 59 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 59 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Ali Baig, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 59 (YLRN) (WAJID ALI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imtiaz Ahmed for Petitioners.
- Deputy Advocate General for the State.
- 3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed this petition by contending that the petitioners/accused have committed an offence of moral turpitude, therefore, the petitioners/accused are not entitled for concession of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497 & 345
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 377 & 34
Unnatural offence, common intention
Compromise in non-compoundable offence
Both the accused persons were students and were studying in a school
One of the accused persons was juvenile at the time of commission of offence as evident from Form-B, issued by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA)
Although, offence under S. 377, P.P.C., was not compoundable, however, the complainant did not want to prosecute the case against the accused persons any further
Court could not compel the complainant to prosecute the case against the accused persons
Compromise was a good ground for concession of bail
Petitioners were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Deputy Advocate General for the State. Complainant in person.
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAIG, J.
This petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. has been moved by the petitioners/accused for grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No.80/19 dated 12-12-2019, registered under section 377/34, P.P.C., at Police Station Basin, District Gilgit.
2. Briefly allegation against the petitioners/accused as disclosed in the FIR is that the petitioners/accused have committed sodomy/unnatural offence with a sheep of complainant, namely Mukhtar, on 12-12-2019, at a pasture situated at Haltish, Bargo Paeen. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has contended that the petitioners/ accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused has further contended that the petitioners/accused has effected compromise with the complainant and he has no objection if petitioners/accused are released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has further contended that petitioner No.1, namely Wajid Ali, is juvenile as his date of birth is 03.11.2002, whereas, petitioner No.2, namely Iftikhar, is also a teenager and is a student of 10th Class, therefore, petitioners/accused are entitled for concession of bail.
3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed this petition by contending that the petitioners/accused have committed an offence of moral turpitude, therefore, the petitioners/accused are not entitled for concession of bail.
4. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
5. Today, the complainant namely Mukhtar appeared before this Court and stated that he has compounded the offence with the petitioners/accused and he has no objection if the petitioners/accused are released on bail. Petitioner No.1 namely Wajid Ali was juvenile at the time of commission of offence as evident from Form-B issued by NADRA. Both the petitioners/accused are students and are studying in a school, therefore, they are entitled for concession of bail.
6. Although the offence under section 377, P.P.C. is not compoundable, however, the complainant does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioners/accused any further. Court cannot compel the complainant to prosecute the case against the petitioners/ accused, hence, compromise is a good ground for concession of bail.
7. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to allow this petition. Consequently, the petitioners are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Vacations/Duty Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit. File. ADN/2/GB Bail allowed.