Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 1763 2019 SLD 1763 2019 YLR 1617
Islamabad High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 46-B of 2019, decision Dated: 19-02-2019.
MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Naseer Anjum Awan

MUHAMMAD IRFAN

VS

THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497,497(2)

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-i-amd ---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Two versions---Scope---Petitioner had been nominated on the basis of the statement subsequently recorded by the widow of the deceased , whereas complainant (father of the deceased) had nominated different set of accused in the FIR---Petitioner contended that only role of raising lalkara was attributed to him---Widow of the deceased contended that the complainant had misled the Police and the petitioner had been nominated in different criminal cases of similar nature---Two versions, while placing in juxtaposition, seemed entirely different from each other---Investigating Officer, in view of two versions, had taken into custody subsequently nominated accused persons including the petitioner ---Investigating Officer even got recovered the weapons of offence (Kalashnikov) , however, the same had not matched with crime empties recovered from the scene of occurrence during the examination conducted by Forensic Science Agency---Petitioner had been assigned the role of raising lalkara as such his role was considered to be on different footing from other accused who had actually committed the offence of murder---Two versions had been put in the present case, one forwarded by the complainant and the other came through supplementary statement of widow of deceased, however, correct version would be determined during trial after recording of evidence and in such like situation benefit of doubt could be extended to accused even at bail stage---Mere pendency of different criminal cases was not a ground to disentitle the accused for grant of bail if otherwise he was entitled to bail---Court was bound to make the assessment of evidence in tentative manner and there was no clog and embargo on the courts' power to asses evidentiary value of material placed before it, however, court had to refrain, directly or indirectly, from giving any conclusive findings on question of guilt or innocence of accused---Case of the petitioner called for further inquiry as envisaged under S.497, Cr.P.C---Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad…
🔒
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