Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 SCMR 20
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year of Decision: 2023
Decision Date: 2023-09-13
Parties: Fahad vs The State and another
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 2023-09-13, officially reported as 2024 SCMR 20. In this matter between Fahad and The State and another, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2024 SCMR 20
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Amin-Ud-Din Khan, Sardar Tariq Masood, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi Title: Fahad vs The State and another Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 495 of 2023 Date of Judgment:2023-09-13 Reported As: 2024 SCMR 20 Result: Bail granted
Judgment
ORDER SARDAR TARIQ M ASOOD, J. Through this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 17.04.2023, by which the post arrest bail was declined to him in case FIR No.11 dated 20.01.2023, registered at Police Station Battagram, District Battagram under sections 302/311/201/202/34, P.P.C. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we observe that the daughter of the complainant, namely, Mst. Riffat Bibi was found missing after 07.01.2023, the matter was reported to the police and it is stated by the complainant that she was done to death by her husband's brother, Janas and his son (petitioner). On query, learned Additional Advocate General, KP and the learned counsel for the complainant state that there is statement of one Abdul Haleem under section 164, Cr.P.C. and there is another important circumstantial evidence in the shape of confessional statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. of Janu alias Janas, in which he had admitted his guilt of committing her murder and also got recovered the dead body of deceased after making disclosure. However, we observe that in both statements under section 164, Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in any context. There is no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except an application, which was filed by the deceased a few days earlier prior to the occurrence. In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner calls for further enquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. 3. Resultantly, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.