2013 PLP 1144 (YLR)
GUL RAZIM and 2 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and' another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1144 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Shah Jehan Khan Akhundzada, J |
| Parties | GUL RAZIM 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 2013 PLP 1144 (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 2013 PLP 1144 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Shah Jehan Khan Akhundzada, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1144 (YLR) (GUL RAZIM 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
- Muhammad Ismail Khan Alizai for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 34 & 427
Attempt to commit qatl e-amd,, common intention, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees
Accused persons directly charged for attempting lives of three persons
Broad daylight occurrence-- Parties known to each other, therefore no question of mistaken identity
Allegation backed by strong motive of blood feud between parties
Medico-legal reports of injured victims corroborating version of complainant
Case falling within prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C
Tentative assessment of evidence prima facie connecting accused persons with commission of offence
Bail petition was dismissed in circumstances. Sanaullah Khan Shamim D.A.-G. for the State. Muhammad Yosuaf Khan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.
Through the instant petition, the accused/petitioners, namely, GuI Razirn, Abdul Ghafoor and Shehr Yar, seek their release on bail in case F.I.R. No.1096 dated 10-12-2012 under sections 324/427/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Cantt. D.I.Khan.
2. According to, the first information report lodged by the complainant Gula Jan, he being a Lawyer by profession was returning home in a motorcar along with his agent/munshi Ehtesham and a small son named Adil Khan aged about 8/9 years after attending his case under sections 302/ 324/34, P.P.C. in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II D.I. Khan.. When reached 1ear Gillani town, a white colour motorcar was already' standing there, out of which the accused/respondents along with an unknown person duly armed with firearms got down and fired at them with which they were injured and the motorcar was damaged. Thereafter, all the accused decamped from the spot in the said motorcar. Motive for the offence was given to be previous blood feud between the parties.
3. Having heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the materials available on file leads me to hold that the accused/petitioners have been directly charged by the complainant 2 for attempting at the lives of three persons effectively, i.e. the complainant, his minor son and agent/Munshi. Moreover, the occurrence has taken place in a broad-day light, the parties are know to each other and thus question of mistaken identity does not arise at the moment. Furthermore, the accusation against the accused/petitioners is I also backed by a strong motive of blood feud between the parties, therefore, the element of false charge is also not available in the instant case presently. Medico-legal Reports of the three victims further corroborate the version of the complainant. Thus there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/petitioners are connected with the offence charged with, punishment for which is ten years and as such the case falls within the purview of, prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and tentative assessment of the materials so far brought on record, prima facie, connect t the accused/petitioners with the commission of the offence. : However,. the above observations are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing or effect on the conclusion drawn at the time of conclusion of the case by the trial Court and it shall be decided on its own merits.
4. For the reasons stated above, I find -no substance in this bail petition which is accordingly dismissed. MWA/101/P Bail refused.