| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3769 2016 SLD 3769 2016 YLR 1469 |
High Court (AJ&K)
Cr. Revision Petition No. 21 of 2016, decided on 26th February, 2016.
M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, JUSTICE
Abdul Hameed Khan Shahid for Petitioners. Ch. Tariq Alam, Asst. A.G. for the State. Sardar Karamdad Khan for the Complainant.
Cr. Revision Petition No. 21 of 2016, decided on 26th February, 2016.
M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, JUSTICE
Abdul Hameed Khan Shahid for Petitioners. Ch. Tariq Alam, Asst. A.G. for the State. Sardar Karamdad Khan for the Complainant.
SHAFAQAT HUSSAIN AND anotherS
VS
. THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL AJ&K MUZAFFARABAD-
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----- -----S. 497(2)-----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.436, 337-H(2), 427, 147, 148, 149 & 452-----Azad Jammu and Kashmir Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, S.14-----Azad Jammu and Kashmir Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014, S.6-D-----Mischief by fire etc., hurt by rash or negligent act, mischief causing damiah, rioting, common object, house-trespass, act of terrorism-----Bail, grant of-----Further inquiry-----Bird eye view of the record, had to be taken into consideration at bail stage and deeper appreciation of evidence, was neither permissible nor desirable-----Courts were not expected to pass a bail order in vacuum-----Accused in the present case, were not nominated in the FIR, which created doubt in the prosecution story to the extent of accused persons; and further inquiry was required to prove their guilt-----In case of non-mentioning the names of accused in the FIR court could extend concession of bail to such like accused-----Co-accused who was nominated in the FIR was granted bail by the Trial Court-----Rule of consistency demanded that accused persons, could also be extended concession of bail-----Matter, was yet to be evaluated by the Trial Court after recording evidence-----Police record did not show that accused persons were hardened, desperate, dangerous criminals; and were connected with the alleged offences-----Challan had been submitted before the competent court of jurisdiction; and they were no more required for further investigation-----Bail could not be withheld as punishment, if otherwise accused was entitled for the same; and no body should remain in criminal prison for indefinite period-----Accused were granted bail, in circumstances. Farrukh v. The State and another 2007 SCR 79; Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Sabir and 12 others 2011 SCR 126; Raja Muhammad Farid Khan v. Raja Sheraz and 2 others 2015 SCR 465; Imam Bux alias Amoo and another v. State PLD 2012 Sindh 212; Azizullah Niazi v. The State 2012 YLR (Sindh) 1071; Liaquat Hussain v. The State and another 2015 SCR 441 and Muhammad Arif v. Babar and another 2015 PCr.LJ 134 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI,…
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