Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 YLR 1529
Court / Jurisdiction: Peshawar High Court
Year of Decision: 2023
Decision Date: 2023-01-16
Parties: Kiramat Khan vs The State and another
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Peshawar High Court on 2023-01-16, officially reported as 2024 YLR 1529. In this matter between Kiramat Khan 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 YLR 1529
Court Name: Peshawar High Court Judge(s): Abdul Shakoor Title: Kiramat Khan vs The State and another Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4145-P of 2022 Date of Judgment:2023-01-16 Reported As: 2024 YLR 1529 Result: Bail granted
Judgment
JUDGM ENT ABDUL SHAKOOR, J. Having failed to get the concession of bail from the Court of learned ASJ/C.P.C./JJC, Peshawar, vide order dated 03.12.2022, petitioner, Kiramat Khan, has moved the instant petition for the same relief in case FIR No.544 dated 02.11.2022, registered under Sections 506/377, P.P.C. read with 36, 38 and 53, C.P.A. at Police Station Regi (District Peshawar), wherein he is charged for making an attempt of sodomy on the nephew of the complainant. 2. Arguments heard and record of the cake gone through. 3. Perusal of the medical report of the victim suggests that no action of sodomy has been done upon him, whereas, the FSL report regarding anal swab and garments of the victim is also negative far human semen. Except the solitary statement of the complainant, no other incriminating evidence is available on record to prima facie connect the present accused-petitioner with the commission of offence; coupled with the fact that complainant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence. Mores, the accused has not yet confessed his guilt. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry in the matter; and in such like cases grant bail is to be considered as a matter right and not as a matter of grace concession. 5. So far as, the applidability of rest of Sections of law is concerned, the same would best be determined by the learned trial Court, after recording pro and contra evidence. Besides, investigation in the case is complete and accused petitioner is no more required to the prosecution for any purpose. He is behind the bars since his arrest; therefore, his further incarceration in jail will serve no useful purpose.
---
## Page 2
6. Before parting with this order, this Court finds it necessary to mention that all the observations recorded above are tentative assessment just for the disposal of bail petition and not to influence the mind of trial Court, which is free to appraise the evidence strictly in accordance with law and merits of the case. 7. For what has been discussed above and on tentative assessment of material available on record, an arguable case for the grant of bail is made out, consequently, this bail petition is allowed and accused-petitioner, named above, is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.