Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AKBAR ZAMAN VS Respondent: STATE
1997 M L D 2280
1997 M L D 2280
[Peshawar]
Before Sardar Muhammad Raza, J
AKBAR ZAMAN and 3 others‑‑‑Applicants
versus
THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.28 of 1994, decided on 16th April, 1994.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Case against accused persons was of direct charge which was supported by ocular testimony of more than one witnesses‑‑‑Empties and blood were collected from the spot‑‑ Three investigations were conducted in the case out of which opinion of two investigations went against accused person‑‑‑Concession of bail was refused to accused persons in circumstances.
Dost Muhammad Khan and S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi for Applicants. Shaukat Hayat Khan for the State.
Abdul. Latif Khan for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 16th April, 1994.
JUDGMENT
Refused bail in case F.I.R.
No.282, dated 24‑f2‑1992 of Police Station Pezu, District Lakki under section 302/34, P.P.C. regarding the murder of Munir Ghulam, the petitioners Akbar Zaman, Abdul Jalil, Abbas Khan and Mir Baz Khan have come up to this Court.
2. The merits as discussed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakki have not I been assailed before me. It is a case of direct charge, duly supported by the ocular testimony of more than one witnesses, recovery of empties from the spot as well as the blood collected. The bail is sought on the ground that in one phase of investigation by the Crimes Branch it was held that the entire occurrence was false and that the deceased was done to death at a different place by one Jamil Khan who had made a confession before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 24‑6‑1993 for a clear motive that the deceased had kept some photographs of a cousin sister of Jamil Khan. That such motive was more plausible than that of Election of Chairman, Zakat Council.
3. From the arguments on either side and also that of the learned State Counsel, one is led to observe that three investigations were conducted in the case out of which the opinion of the two investigations went against the present petitioners while one investigation resulted into the involvement of Jamil Khan. It is quite meaningful that Jamil Khan was involved at a belated stage. He is quite a young boy who is the real son of one of the petitioners and nephew of the other. Of all the people his real maternal‑uncle has come forward to involve him instead of the petitioners who have no real affinity with the maternal‑uncle. The confessional statement also is recorded in a manner that ultimately Jamil Khan happens to be placed in column No.2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C.
4. Lest two birds are killed with one stone and two charges are ultimately brought to ashes, the prima facie collusive course adopted by the defence be not allowed to prevail. The application is rejected and the concession of bail is refused.
A.A./2055/P Bail refused.