Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLD 3197
Islamabad High Court
Criminal Misc. No.826-B of 2022
Presented By: ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR
 18.07.2022 Petitioner on ad-interim bail with Mr. Malik Saqib Mehmood, Advocate.  Mr. Sajid Mehmood Ch., Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant. Mian  Zain Qureshi, State counsel, M. Nawaz & M. Siddiq SI/IOs.  

  Muhammad Yasir  

VERSUS

  The State & another

Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860

Section: 324,34

ORDER-SHEET  Through the instant Criminal Misc., petitioner-accused (Muhammad Yasir) prays for pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 923, dated 30.04.2022, Under Section 324/34 PPC, registered at Police Station Koral, Islamabad.   2- According to the allegations set-forth in the FIR, the daughter of the complainant namely Mst. Raheela was married to Saqlain Akhtar, co-accused, son of Mst. Naseem Saeed, sister of the complainant but their relations turned hostile and she was expelled out of the house  by Saqlain Akhtar after pronouncing one divorce; that the matter was patched up but subsequently the relations again became strained; that on 24.04.2022 they visited the petitioner Muhammad Yasir on his asking for patch up where they were given beating while co-accused Saqlain Akhtar tried to kill his daughter by pressing her neck. It is further alleged that the petitioner caught hold the complainant while accused persons attempted to kill his daughter.   Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the story narrated in the FIR is concocted; that there is delay in lodging the FIR; that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner; that petitioner is non-convict and non-record holder; that the offence of section 324 PPC even by bare reading  of FIR is not attracted therefore, the petiotner is entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail. Reliance in placed upon case law reported as 2021 SCMR 2011, 2021 PCr.LJ 1300, 2014 SCMR 1355, PLD 2021 SC 898 & 2021 SCMR 130.   On the other hand, learned State Counsel assisted by leaned counsel for the complainant repelled the above submissions. It is asserted that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR and sufficient incriminating material is available on record which prima facie connects him with the commission of alleged offence; that the petitioner had a commanding role and that no malice or malafide on the part of the complainant is available therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.    Heard, record examined.    Record reveals that the occurrence of 24.04.2022 was reported to the police with the delay of five days on 30.04.2022 which, in the attending circumstances of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register