2017 PLP 2472 (YLR)
KHALIL KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 2472 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Assadullah Khan Chamkani, J |
| Parties | KHALIL 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 2017 PLP 2472 (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 2017 PLP 2472 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Assadullah Khan Chamkani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 2472 (YLR) (KHALIL KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Abdul Fayaz Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 457, 380 & 120-B
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 14
Khyber Pakhtunkhawa Restriction of Rented Building (Security) Act (XIV of 2014), S. 10
Lurking house-trespass by night, theft in dwelling house, criminal conspiracy, theft liable to tazir
Complainant, in his initial report, charged unknown culprits for committing theft in his jewellry shop
Complainant got recorded his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C., after more than one and a half months, and besides charging absconding co-accused and unknown co-accused, also charged accused by attributing him the role of instigation in the commission of offence
Complainant advanced a motive that accused had rented out his shop contiguous to his shop to co-accused without any rent deed or surety, against which he complained to the accused about his apprehension regarding theft by the co-accused
Except the alleged motive, no other piece of direct or circumstantial evidence was available to connect the accused with the commission of offence
Role of instigation attributed to the accused could only be determined after recording evidence
Circumstances established that participation of the accused in the commission of offence required further probe into his guilt
Accused was allowed bail in circumstances. Waqar Ahmad Khan A.A.G. for the State Hussain Ali for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.
Petitioner Khalil Khan, seeks bail in case FIR No.599 dated 29.11.2015, registered under sections 457/380/120-B, P.P.C. and section 14 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 as well as section 10 of Rented Building Restriction Act, in Police Station West Cantt. Peshawar.
2. According to report of complainant Muhammad Shoaib on 28.10.2015 at 8.00 p.m. he while closing his Jewelry shop situated in Liaqat Bazaar went to his house and on next day when he opened his shop, found its roof locks broken and 400 tolas gold and Rs.8,00,000/- in cash missing/ stolen therefrom. He charged unknown culprits in his initial report. Later on, on 08.12.2015, he in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., besides charging absconding co-accused Najibullah, Sher Ali, Tariq, Char Gul alias Haji, Abdul Hadi and unknown co-accused, also charged present petitioner by attributing him the role of instigation in the commission of offence by advancing a motive that petitioner had rented out his shop contiguous to his shop in lieu of Rs.9000/- as rent per month to co-accused named above without any rent deed or surety, against which he complained to the petitioner about his apprehension regarding theft by the co-accused being afghan refugees, by jumping to the third floor of his shop, on which the petitioner annoyed.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Except the above motive advanced by the complainant against the petitioner in his statement recorded on 08.12.2015, that too, after a period of more than one and a half month from the date of incident, at the moment there is no other piece of direct or circumstantial evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. Besides, the role of instigation attributed to the petitioner can only be determined during trial after recording evidence which is sole domain of the Trial Court. At the moment on tentative assessment of the material on record, participation of the petitioner in the commission of offence requires further probe into his guilt, therefore, he is entitled to concession of bail.
5. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Accused/petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with two local, reliable and resourceful sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD, concerned. JK/185/P Petition allowed.