| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1078 2018 SLD 1078 2018 PCRLJ 645 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr. M/B. No. 661-A of 2017, decision & hearing Date : 06-11-2017.
SYED ARSHAD ALI, JUSTICE
Waqar Ahmed Khan Jehangiri for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Asif, A.A.G. for the State. Shad Muhammad Khan for the Complainant.
Cr. M/B. No. 661-A of 2017, decision & hearing Date : 06-11-2017.
SYED ARSHAD ALI, JUSTICE
Waqar Ahmed Khan Jehangiri for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Asif, A.A.G. for the State. Shad Muhammad Khan for the Complainant.
MAZHAR
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, refusal of---Further inquiry---Cross case---Categories in cases of bail---Scope---Contention of accused was that as the matter was of cross version, he was entitled to concession of bail---Validity---Every cross version did not necessarily make the guilt of accused for further inquiry---Court in such a case, could resort to tentative assessment of material produced to form an opinion as to whether a case of further inquiry was made out or not---Three categories of cross cases: First was where out of the two parties , prima facie there was a case against one party to have initiated aggression on the other party and the later had acted in self-defence, the party that acted in self-defence would be entitled to bail; second would be wherein two opposite parties had, by chance, came across and out of fear had assaulted each other, in that case, both parties would be entitled to bail on the assumption that they had acted in self-defence and third would be in where two opposite parties had indulged in the fight at the spur of the moment, in such a case, unless evidence was recorded, it was yet to be determined as to which party had committed aggression, hence both the parties were entitled to concession of bail---Court, however, was not precluded from tentatively assessing the guilt of each accused even in cross case while granting bail to one party and refusing to the other party---Merely because there were cross FIRs or cross cases against each other, could not be a ground for grant of bail---Observations by High Court while disposing of bail applications were not to be considered during the trial of the accused. Manawar Din v. Gul Zaman and others PLD 1977 Pesh. 59; Arif Din v. Amil Khan and another 2005 SCMR 1402 and Shuaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftekharul Haq 1996 SCMR 1845 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Entitlement---Cross versions---Scope---Every cross version did not necessarily make the guilt of accused for further inquiry and the Court in such a case could…
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