| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3146 2016 SLD 3146 2016 MLD 1072 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr. Misc No. 1691-P of 2015, decided on 19th October, 2015. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2015.
QAISER RASHID KHAN, JUSTICE
Ishtiaq Ibrahim for Petitioner. Syed Sikandar Hayat Shah, AAG for the State. Imtiaz-ur-Rehman for the Complainant.
Cr. Misc No. 1691-P of 2015, decided on 19th October, 2015. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2015.
QAISER RASHID KHAN, JUSTICE
Ishtiaq Ibrahim for Petitioner. Syed Sikandar Hayat Shah, AAG for the State. Imtiaz-ur-Rehman for the Complainant.
ASMAT ALI alias MATTAY - er
VS
The STATE and another - --Respondent
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --------- ----------S. 497 --------- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 34 --------- Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment and common intention --------- Bail, grant of --------- Nothing was on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence except through the allegations made in the FIR --------- Investigating agency had yet to ascertain the involvement of accused having abetted the offence --------- Present situation called for further probe into the matter --------- Accused was entitled for concession of bail --------- Bail was allowed to the accused subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) with two local, reliable and men of means sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: QAISER RASHID KHAN, JUSTICE:---------- After having been refused bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shabqadar vide order dated 14.9.2015 in case FIR No. 373 dated 11.7.2015 registered under sections 302/324/34/ 109, P.P.C., Police Station Shabqadar District Charsadda, the instant application has been moved for the same very relief. 2. The allegations against the accused-petitioner and his absconding co-accused, Shaukat, are that at their instance and abetment the principal accused namely, Wilayat and Gohar, had committed the murder of the father of the complainant with fire arms, hence the FIR ibid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused-petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case; that no independent ocular or circumstantial evidence exists to connect the accused-petitioner with the commission of the offence; that the accused-petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of alleged firing by the principal accused; that except the bare allegations in the FIR nothing is available on the record to connect the accused-petitioner with the commission of offence, therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the case of the accused-petitioner calls for further probe into the matter which thus entitles him to the grant of bail. 4. The learned counsel for the…
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