| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5709 2024 SLD 5709 2024 PLD 969 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 183-P of 2022, decided on 7th March, 2023. (Against the order dated 7.11.2022 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr. Misc. (Bail Application) No. 2923-P of 2022).
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, Yahya Afridi and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (through video-link, Peshawar). Burhan Latif Khaisori, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Sardar Ali Raza, Addl. A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Ghaffar Ali, DSP, Nazeefur Rehman, Inspector and Muhammad Ghani, Inspector for the State. Date of hearing: 7th March, 2023.
Criminal Petition No. 183-P of 2022, decided on 7th March, 2023. (Against the order dated 7.11.2022 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr. Misc. (Bail Application) No. 2923-P of 2022).
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, Yahya Afridi and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (through video-link, Peshawar). Burhan Latif Khaisori, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Sardar Ali Raza, Addl. A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Ghaffar Ali, DSP, Nazeefur Rehman, Inspector and Muhammad Ghani, Inspector for the State. Date of hearing: 7th March, 2023.
AHMAD ALI---Petitioner
VERSUS
The STATE through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others--Respondents
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898
Section: 497
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Per Qazi Faez Isa, J.; Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. agreeing; Yahya Afridi, J. dissenting. [Majority view](a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd---Bail, refusal of---Case of cross-versions---[Per Qazi Faez Isa, J. [Majority view]: In the present case the daily diary, which recorded the petitioner's version of events, simply stated that the petitioner's side was fired upon by the complainant's side, but it was not stated why the petitioner's side had fired, or returned fire, let alone taking the plea of self-defence---Daily diary also did not attribute motive to the complainant's side---What the police daily diary recorded did not constitute a cross or different version of events, and which may have persuaded the Court to grant bail to the petitioner---Daily diary on which the petitioner relied confirmed his presence at the crime scene, where two persons from the complainant's side were killed and one was injured---Moreover, the State did not move for cancellation of bail granted to the complainant's side and though the petitioner's side did move for cancellation of bail of one of the co-accused it then withdrew the same---Petition was dismissed, leave to appeal was declined, and consequently petitioner was refused bail---[Per Yahya Afridi, J.; dissenting[Minority view]: In the instant case., distinct versions of how the events unfolded, which lead to the commission of the crime, had been put forth by the contesting parties---Time and place of the occurrence were admitted by both parties--However, the facts of the present case did not prima facie put forth which party was an aggressor, as it was a common path close to the dwelling place of both parties, and both were armed with firearms---Admittedly, both parties had recognized the general role of firing firearms at each other, leading to injuries on both sides---In particular, the petitioner had not been reported to having had an effective role in causing injury to any of the two deceased or injured persons---In the cross FIR lodged by the petitioner's side, the complainant party, who were accused of 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