2019 P Cr (PLP)
SHAKAR WALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAKAR WALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 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 2019 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 P Cr (PLP) (SHAKAR WALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Khaliq for Petitioner.
- Dy. Advocate-General for the State.
- 4. The learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the bail petition and submitted that it was a day light occurrence, wherein the petitioner has been directly charged for commission of the alleged offence. Eye-witnesses of the occurrence have specifically charged the petitioner/ accused for commission of offence, which clearly attracts the provision of section 324, P.P.C. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. is not bailable and falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 341 & 427
Arms Act (XX of 1965), S. 13
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, wrongfully restraining any person, mischief, and thereby causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees or upward
Intention to commit qatl-i-amd
Scope
Petitioner allegedly came in front of the vehicle suddenly and stopped the vehicle in the way, opened fire with lethal weapon hitting the backside tyre of the vehicle which was burst, however, the driver saved all with his expertise
Petitioner contended that provision of S. 324, P.P.C. was not attracted as no one was injured in the occurrence
Record revealed that the petitioner was directly charged in the FIR
Petitioner opened fire on a jeep but none was injured in the incident
No evidence was available that the petitioner repeated the fire or chased the vehicle
Intention to kill would be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence
Petitioner had made out a case for the concession of bail
Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner Shakar Wali has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.04/2018 dated 23-03-2018 under sections 324/427/ 341, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Gabbar, District Diamer.
2. The gist of accusation contained in FIR against the petitioner has been mentioned in para 2 of the impugned judgment/order dated 19-10-2018, which are re-produced as under:- "
2. Facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that on 23-03-2018 at about 1100 hours while he was going to attend marriage ceremony of his niece with Ubaid Khan Driver in a hiace bearing No.GLT 0420 along with Malook accompanied by his family and younus, when reached near the house of Mastan Wali suddenly Shakar Wali came in front of the vehicle and while stopped the vehicle in the way he opened fire with lethal weapon which hit the backside tyre of the vehicle which was burst and the driver saved all with his expertise."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is false and the petitioner has been maliciously involved in the instant case. The learned counsel further submitted that the provision of section 324, P.P.C. are not attracted in the case, as no one has been injured in the incident. The challan despite of lapes of a considerable period has not yet been submitted in the trial Court, which is a clear violation of section 173, Cr.P.C. The detention of the petitioner after 17 days has become illegal. The case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry and he is entitled for the concession of bail.
4. The learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the bail petition and submitted that it was a day light occurrence, wherein the petitioner has been directly charged for commission of the alleged offence. Eye-witnesses of the occurrence have specifically charged the petitioner/ accused for commission of offence, which clearly attracts the provision of section 324, P.P.C. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. is not bailable and falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. The FIR reveals that the petitioner is directly charged in FIR. The petitioner opened fire on a jeep but one was injured in the incident. There is no evidence that the petitioner repeated the fire or chased the vehicle. The intention to kill will be determined by the trial Court after recording of some evidence. A case for bail has been made out. The petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00000/- (ten lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
6. File be consigned to record after completion. MQ/222/GB Bail granted.