Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2571 2012 SLD 2571 2012 YLR 2391
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1714 of 20I1, decided on 21st November, 2011
ATTAULLAH KHAN, J
Murtaza Durran for Petitioner. Muhammad Rehan Awan for the State. Fazal Haq Khidaman for the Complainant

GUL SAID

VS

THE STATE and another

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Bail, refusal of---Accused was directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R., which had eliminated the chance of false implication of accused---Accused, along with his co-accused had been directly nominated for causing murder of deceased---Accused being relative of complainant party, question of misidentification did not arise--Incident was a daylight occurrence---Contradiction in two pieces of evidence regarding number of injuries which was still to be tested and plea of alibi were to be thrashed out at the trial---Complete challan had been submitted and the trial was about to commence---Bail petition of accused was dismissed, in circumstances. 2003 PCr.LJ 518; PLD 1996 SC 241 and 1997 SCMR 1829 distinguished. 201 PCr.LJ 1463; 2010 PCr.LJ 1386; PLD 1974 SC 83 and 2000 MLD 1046 rel. JUDGMENT ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---After failing to get relief from the lower forums below petitioner namely Gul Said son of Noor Said has preferred this petition under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. for his release on bail on the grounds mentioned in the petition. The petitioner is charged under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.255 dated 9-7-2011 Police Station, Mattani, Peshawar. 2. The brief facts are that the complainant was present along with his father Khan Said and mother Mst. Hazra, in front of his Hujra when in- the meanwhile Jan Said, Nadar Said, Nazar Said and present accused-petitioner Gul Said were present there with fire arms, opened firing which hit Khan Said, the father of the complainant, who died on the spot while they remained unhurt. The motive given is dispute over the landed property. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of occurrence the accused-petitioner was not present on the spot. According to learned counsel he was present in his Unit on the date and time of occurrence in Rawalpindi Cantonment. He referred to a certificate issued by Commanding Officer on 11-10-2011. The second submission is that it is a case of no evidence, because one of the witnesses is his mother, who is not supposed to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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