| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2459 2004 SLD 2459 2004 PCRLJ 1189 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Revision Petition No. 4 of 2002, decided on 20th June, 2003. (On appeal from the order of the Shariat Court, dated 5-4-2002 in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2001). DATE of hearing: 13th June, 2003
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED AND CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, JJ
Raja Ibrar Hussain, Advocate-General for the State. Muhammad Yaqub Khan Mughal, Advocate for the Complainant. Kh. Muhammad Naseem, Advocate for
Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 4 of 2002, decided on 20th June, 2003. (On appeal from the order of the Shariat Court, dated 5-4-2002 in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2001). DATE of hearing: 13th June, 2003
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED AND CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, JJ
Raja Ibrar Hussain, Advocate-General for the State. Muhammad Yaqub Khan Mughal, Advocate for the Complainant. Kh. Muhammad Naseem, Advocate for
Respondent
THE STATE
VS
GHULAM RASOOL
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--------S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34---Bail, grant of--Points to be considered---At bail stage it was obligatory for the Court to look into the F.I.R., the statement of prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence, recoveries and other material supporting prosecution version alongwith defence plea, if any, and then decide question of bail one way or the other---Appellate Court, however, while deciding bail matter, should not enter into the deep appreciation of evidence rather should restrict itself to tentative assessment of the material available on record against accused and satisfy itself that if such material remained un-rebutted, same could lead to inference of the guilt of accused---Appreciation of evidence and drawing a conclusion therefrom, was within the exclusive domain of Trial Court---Appellate Court should not anticipate certain results from such material while dealing with ancillary matters like bail---If during tentative assessment of evidence, any doubt was available, same must necessarily be resolved in favour of accused---Prima facie, role of accused in the present case was identical to role attributed to co-accused who had been released on bail--Following rule of consistency, Shariat Court was justified in allowing concession of bail to accused. Muhammad Siddique and another v. The State and another 2001 PCr.LJ 1073 ref. JUDGMENT KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.---This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dated 5-4-2002 whereby the accused-respondent was allowed bail in a case under section 302/34, A.P.C. 2. There is no need to mention in detail the facts of the case, suffice it to say that Saif Ullah lodged a complaint at Police Station Kahuri at 8-30 p.m. on 11-7-2001 in which he alleged that the complainant pasty and the accused persons had dispute over "Shamilat Deh" land. According to him on the day of occurrence at 9-30 a.m., the complainant and his brother Ghulam Hassan were removing bushes from the disputed "Shamilat Deh" land when Ghulam Rasool accused respondent, accompanied by Akhtar Zaman, Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492