2009 PLP 1796 (YLR)
CHANWAIZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus CHANGRIAZ KHAN and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1796 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mohyuddin Malik, J |
| Parties | CHANWAIZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus CHANGRIAZ KHAN and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1796 (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 2009 PLP 1796 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Ghulam Mohyuddin Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1796 (YLR) (CHANWAIZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus CHANGRIAZ KHAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naseem Zaman Khan for Petitioner.
- Munir Ahmad Bhatti for Respondent No.1 in person along with Atif Ali Sadoon Advocate.
- Date of hearing: 8th June, 2009.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34
Cancellation of bail, application for
Respondents/accused, no doubt were directly charged in the F.I.R. for attempting at the lives of complainant party by firing at them with their respective weapons and shot fired by one of accused persons hit the lady on wrist, but in the site plan, the distance between accused and the complainant was about .80 paces
Accused were shown outside the house, whereas the victim was in the courtyard
When four persons were firing simultaneously at the complainant party, how it could be said the fire of one of accused hit the lady
Said lady was wounded on non-vital part of her body which was her wrist
Accused were on bail for the last about 7 months and no allegation was levelled to the effect that they had misused the liberty by tampering with the prosecution evidence or there was apprehension of their abscondence
Complete challan had been submitted in the court for trial and final decision was in the sight
Cancellation of bail, would serve no useful purpose at this stage.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MOHYUDDIN MALIK, J.
This is an application for cancellation of bail, in case F.I.R. No. 41 dated 30-4-2008 charge under section 324/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Nara Abbottabad, granted to accused-respondents by the learned A.S.J-I, Abbottabad vide order dated 16-10-2008.
2. I have heard .the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel and counsel for the accused-respondents and have perused the record.
3. No doubt the accused-respondents are directly charged in the F.I.R. for attempting at the lives of complainant party by firing at them with their respective weapons and the shot fired by Parvez hit Mst. Hafizun Nisa on wrist but the fact remains that in the site-plan, the distance between the accused and the complainant is about 80 paces. The accused are shown outside the house whereas the victim in the Courtyard. The question that when four persons were firing simultaneously at the complainant party how could one say that the fire of Parvez hit the lady. Moreover, she was wounded on non-vital part of the body, the firing was made from a considerable distance, so the question whether intention to commit Qatl-i-Amd of the lady exists on the part of accused. The maxim "Actus non facit reum, nisimens sit rea, (the intention and act 'must both concur to constitute the crime). It means, no one can be guilty of a crime without the will and intention of his mind.' The attending facts of the case suggest that for determination of intention of accused recording of prosecution evidence at the trial is necessary. Lastly, the accused-respondents are on bail for the last about 7 months, there is no allegation that they had misused the liberty by tampering with the prosecution evidence or there is apprehension of their abscondence. Complete challan has been submitted in the Court for trial and as such final decision is in sight, therefore, in these circumstances cancellation of bail would serve no useful purpose.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this application being meritless stands dismissed. H.B.T./121/P Application dismissed.