2020 PLP 423 (SCMR)
HIDAYAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 423 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Ahmad Malik and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ |
| Parties | HIDAYAT KHAN — 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 2020 PLP 423 (SCMR)?
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 423 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 423 (SCMR) (HIDAYAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asadullah Khan Chamakani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court along with Waheed Khan, ASI for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal M. (B.A.) No. 2668-P of 2019)
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 404 & 201
Qatl-i-amd, dishonestly receiving stolen property, causing disappearance of evidence of offence
Admittedly, the accused was not named in the FIR in any context
Prosecution had based its case against the accused on the basis of recovery of a SIM card from him belonging to the deceased, a pistol recovered on pointation of accused, positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the statement of father of deceased recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C.
Father of deceased had not implicated the accused on the basis of any evidence, rather he stated in his statement that different steps taken by the police during the course of investigation particularly call data which showed that a call was allegedly made between deceased and the accused and the recovery of pistol on the pointation of the accused convinced him that accused was involved in the crime
Evidentiary value of report of the FSL was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties
Case against the accused called for further inquiry within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Accused was granted bail with the directions that if the concession of bail was misused by the accused or any delay in conclusion of trial was caused by him or anyone else acting on his behalf, the Trial Court shall be competent to recall the bail, after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with law. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court along with Waheed Khan, ASI for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.
Impugned herein is the order dated 11.10.2019, whereby bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in case FIR No.495 dated 17.06.2019, offence under sections 302, 404, 201, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Urmar, Peshawar.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the available record with their assistance.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner is not named in the FIR in any context. The prosecution has based its case against the petitioner on the basis of recovery of a SIM of deceased from him, a pistol on his pointation, positive report of FSL and the statement of father of deceased namely Bacha Said recorded under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as statement of father of deceased is concerned, he has not implicated the petitioner on the basis of any evidence, rather he stated in his statement that different steps taken by the police during the course of investigation particularly call data which showed that a call was allegedly made between deceased and the petitioner and the recovery of pistol on the pointation of the petitioner convinced him that petitioner is involved in the crime. We have also perused the report of FSL. It has been confirmed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of State under instructions of the investigating officer present with record that empties were recovered from the spot on 17.06.2019 and the pistol recovered from the petitioner and the empties were sent to the office of firearm expert on the same day i.e. on 19.08.2019. In the circumstances, evidentiary value of these pieces of evidence shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording the evidence of the parties. As of now, the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petition is converted into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed. The appellant-Hidayat Khan is allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Since the challan has been submitted, therefore, the learned trial court seized of the matter is directed to expedite the proceedings of trial and ensure its early conclusion. It is is made clear that if the concession of bail is misused by the appellant or any delay in the conclusion of trial is caused by him or anyone else acting on his behalf, the learned trial court shall be competent to recall the bail granted to him, of course, after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with law. MWA/H-2/SC Bail granted.