| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 285 2026 SLD 285= 2025 SCMR 2059 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 1230 of 2025, decided on 27th August, 2025. (On appeal against the judgment dated 11.07.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench passed in Crl Misc: B.A. No. 275-B of 2025).
Presented By: Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Salahuddin Panhwar, JJ
Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi and Mudassar Hussain Malik, Advocates Supreme Court for Complainant. Altaf Khan, Additional Prosecutor General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Khanana Khan, DSP and Raqiaz Khan, SI for the State. Date of hearing: 27th August, 2025.
Criminal Petition No. 1230 of 2025, decided on 27th August, 2025. (On appeal against the judgment dated 11.07.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench passed in Crl Misc: B.A. No. 275-B of 2025).
Presented By: Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Salahuddin Panhwar, JJ
Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi and Mudassar Hussain Malik, Advocates Supreme Court for Complainant. Altaf Khan, Additional Prosecutor General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Khanana Khan, DSP and Raqiaz Khan, SI for the State. Date of hearing: 27th August, 2025.
SHER KHAN ---Petitioner
VERSUS
The STATE through A.G. KPK and another ---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Section: 497(2)
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302, 324 & 34
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accusedpetitioner were that he along with his co-accused while armed with different weapons launched an attack upon the complainant party and committed murder of two persons---As per record, joint role was assigned to petitioner and co-accused of making fire shots with Kalashnikov, which landed on the bodies of the two deceased persons---No specific injury on the body of any deceased had been assigned to the petitioner---As per police record, no weapon had been recovered from the possession of the petitioner during the investigation of the case--According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the empties recovered from the spot were found to be fired from one weapon---It was not determinable at this stage that as to whether any fire shot made by the petitioner landed on the body of either of the deceased---Furthermore, the son of the petitioner was admittedly injured during the occurrence and that fact had also been mentioned in the FIR--Though the complainant stated in the FIR that the said injured received injuries on account of firing of the accused party but it was noted that the accused party had also lodged a cross-version and according to the Investigating Officer both the parties had been challaned in the State case, as well as, cross-version case---Said injured was medically examined on the day of occurrence and according to his Medico-Legal Report, there were five entry and exit wounds on his body---There were firearm entry and exit wounds on his chest and there were multiple firearm wounds on his legs---As it was a cross-version case, therefore, it would be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence that as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon and as such the prosecution case against the petitioner was one of further inquiry entitling the petitioner to the grant of post arrest bail---It was Alleged by prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant…