Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NASIR VS Respondent: RAJI REHMATHonorable Justice Malik Haq NawazSharif Ahmed and Shafqat Ali,Abdul Khaliq and Kamran
2022 Y L R Note 18 [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] Before Malik Haq Nawaz, C J MUHAMMAD NASIR---Petitioner Versus RAJI REHMAT and another---Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous No. 316 of 2019, decided on 10th June, 2020. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(5)--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337-F(v), 324, 114 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, hashimah, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed and common intention--- Bail, cancellation of---Scope---Petitioner/complainant sought cancellation of bail granted to accused by the Trial Court---Main contention of petitioner was that the accused had committed fraud and misguided the court through a fake compromise effected between the legal heirs of the deceased and the accused party---Copies of undertakings/affidavit were duly signed by the legal heirs of the deceased, whereby the accused was exonerated by the legal heirs of the deceased---No case for cancellation of bail was made out---Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Sharif Ahmed and Shafqat Ali for Petitioner. Abdul Khaliq and Kamran for Respondent No.1/accused. Deputy Advocate General for the State. Date of hearing: 10th June, 2020. ORDER MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, C.J.---Through the instant petition filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail facility extended to the accused/respondent Raji Rehmat son of Johar by the learned Additional Sessions Judge District Diamer through order dated 14.12.2019, whereby the learned Trial Court has granted bail to the accused with the opinion that the case of petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. 2. The concise background as narrated by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Para-2 of order dated 14.12.2019 is reproduced as under: "2. It is the case of prosecution that on 02.12.2017 at about 4:30 p.m. the petitioner along with co-accused exchanged hot words with Abdul Wahab on the issue that why said Abdul Wahab stood surety of one Skil son of Jamal. The complainant and others intervened and took Abdul Wahab to shop of Muhammad Anwar. In the meantime, the petitioner and co-accused directed accused Arifullah to commit murder of Abdul Wahab, on the direction said Arifullah opened indiscriminate firing upon the complainant and others present in the shop which resulted in murder of Khayal-ud-Din while Muhammad Nasir and Muhammad Anwar received gunshot injuries." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Diamer has allowed bail to respondent No.1/accused by accepting a fake and self made compromise allegedly effected between respondent No.1/accused and legal heirs of deceased and victims, whereas the FIR lodger has not entered into compromise with the accused party, thus the accused/respondent No.1 has misguided the trial Court. The learned counsel submitted that the accused/ respondent No.1 is directly nominated in the FIR with specific role. The learned counsel further argued that there is apprehension of casualties and damage of prosecution evidence if the bail of the accused/respondent No.1 is not re-called. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has ignored the prosecution evidence and accepted the compromise despite having knowledge of injury received by the petitioner. With these submissions, the learned counsel prayed for cancellation of bail of the accused/respondent No.1 by setting aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2019. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused/respondent No.1 strongly opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased have validly effected compromise with the accused party on their free will and without any undue influence or coercion and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Diamer while considering the compromise, admitted bail to the accused/respondent No.1. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no irregularity and illegality in the impugned order and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction. The learned counsel further contended that the accused/respondent No.1 has not misused the facility of bail and he never thinks to spoil the evidence of prosecution by using unfair means. 5. I have minutely considered the arguments of the parties and carefully perused the available record. 6. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused/respondent No.1 has committed fraud and misguided the Court through a fake compromise effected between the legal heirs of the deceased and the accused party. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused/respondent No.1 submitted in the Court copies of undertakings/affidavit duly signed by the legal heirs of the deceased, whereby the petitioner has been exonerated by the legal heirs of the deceased. No case for cancellation of bail is made out. Hence, the bail cancellation petition is declined accordingly. 7. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.316 of 2019 is disposed-off. File SA/111/GB Petition dismissed.