Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 1643 2026 SLD 1643 = 2026 YLR 393
Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court
Cr. Misc. No. 361 of 2025, decided on 24th September, 2025.
Presented By: Before Johar Ali, J
Mohammad Saleem for Petitioner. Malik Sherbaz, Addl. A.G. for the State. Mir Zeeshan Akhlaq for the Complainant.

SOHAIL RAZA and another---Petitioners

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(2),498

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 341,337A,506(ii),147,148

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497(2) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 341, 337-A, 506(ii), 147 & 148---Wrongful restraint, causing shajjah, criminal intimidation, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons---Ad interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they caused severe injuries to the complainant and his father over a parking issue--From perusal of record it transpired that the petitioner No.1/accused and two others were directly nominated in the FIR and the allegations levelled therein indeed disclosed commission of the offences under Ss.147, 148, 341, 337-A & 506(ii), P.P.C---Alleged occurrence had been committed at a road which was a populated area and was a hub of selling auto-parts of various vehicles by various people of almost all the districts as well as citizens of different provinces and various kinds of workshops of vehicles were situated in the area--Despite that, the complainant had failed to produce a single private witness regarding the occurrence which showed that the complainant had malafidely lodged the instant FIR just to harass the petitioners/accused in the hands of police---Moreover, as per contents of FIR, the petitioners/accused had beaten complainant and his father as such the complainant and his father got severe injuries on head and vital parts of body, whereas, the prosecution had failed to submit Medico-Legal Report despite lapse of two months---Moreover, the principal accused, who was directly nominated in the FIR, had already been released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate and acquitted him from the charges levelled in the FIR due to compromise between the parties, hence, the petitioners/accused were also entitled for concession of bail---Grant of prearrest bail was not to be withheld as a punishment, rather it was meant to protect innocent persons from humiliation and undue harassment at the hands of the police or complainant when a case of mala-fides or ulterior motive was made out---Admittedly, Ss. 147, 341 and 337-A, P.P.C, were bailable, whereas, Ss. 148 and 506(ii), P.P.C, were non-bailable, the punishment provided…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register