Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AFRAZ GUL VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Ali BaigRaja Zia-ur-Rehman
2019 Y L R Note 52 [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] Before Ali Baig, J AFRAZ GUL---Petitioner Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No. 193 of 2018, decided on 22nd November, 2018. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Abetment---Bail, refusal of---Accused was charged for the murder of deceased---Record showed that accused-petitioner was not nominated in the FIR by the complainant---Brother of deceased along with eye-witnesses of the occurrence appeared later on before the SHO and nominated the present accused along with principal accused by submitting an application---Brother of deceased and eye-witnesses recorded their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Statements of said witnesses showed that the accused-petitioner was present at the place of occurrence and had abetted the principal accused in committing murder of the deceased---Accused-petitioner having admittedly been seen at the place of occurrence by the eye-witnesses, a prima facie case was made out against him by the prosecution---Prosecution had collected sufficient incriminating material during investigation against the present accused-petitioner---Accused-petitioner was not entitled to concession of bail, which was declined accordingly. Raja Zia-ur-Rehman for Petitioner/ accused. Dy. Advocate General for the State. Basharat Ali for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 20th November, 2018. ORDER ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant bail petition the petitioner/accused namely Afraz Gul son of Juma Noor has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.29/2018 dated 29.7.2018 registered under section 302, P.P.C. at Police Station Juglote District Gilgit. 2. Briefly prosecution's case/story as narrated in the FIR is that the complainant namely Zahir Shah son of Fazil Noor was sitting in his house on 29.7.2018. At 7 p.m. on 29-7-2018, he was informed by mobile phone by one Wahid-ur-Rehman that deceased Shah Farman has been murdered by accused Mian Gul at Darote Bazar by opening fires on him. Accordingly, the complainant proceeded to the place of occurrence and found that dead body of deceased was lying on a cot and people were also gathered there. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused contended that the petitioner is not directly nominated in the FIR rather another person namely Mian Gul was nominated in the FIR who has been discharged by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that on the basis of supplementary statement of brother of deceased, the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused namely Ejaz Gul have been implicated in this case, hence the case of the present petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf the State controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and contended that the complainant of this case was not present at the place of occurrence, therefore, he has not nominated the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused namely Ejaz Gul and has wrongly nominated one Mian Gul in the FIR, whereas accused Mian Gul was involved in criminal another case FIR No.30/2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further argued that eye-witnesses namely Wahid-ur-Rehman and Sharafat have fully implicated the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused namely Ejaz Gul in this case in their statements recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. hence, the petitioner/ accused is not entitled for concession of bail. 5. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner/ accused namely Afraz Gul and principal accused namely Ejaz Gul were not nominated in the FIR by the complainant, as he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. But later on the real brother of deceased namely Alamgir had appeared before the SHO Police Station Juglote on 01-8-2018, along with eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Zafar Hussain, Sharafat and Wahid-ur-Rehman and submitted an application to the SHO Police Station Juglote nominating the principal accused namely Ejaz Gul and the present petitioner/accused in the said application, on the basis of statements of the above named eye-witnesses. Perusal of statements of the above named eye-witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. by the police it appears that the present petitioner/accused was present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence and he has abetted the principal accused namely Ejaz Gul in committing murder of the deceased Shah Farman. 7. Since the present petitioner/ accused was admittedly seen at the place of occurrence by the eye-witnesses, thus a prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner/accused by the prosecution as the prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating material during investigation against the present petitioner/accused, as such he is not entitled for concession of bail. 8. Moreover, offence under section 342, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. 9. In view of above stated facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed, and bail is declined to the present petitioner/ accused. File. JK/229/GB Bail refused.