Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MIR ALAM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Malik Haq NawazZafar Iqbal
2019 P Cr. L J Note 103 [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] Before Malik Haq Nawaz, J MIR ALAM and others---Petitioners Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 27 and 28 of 2019, decided on 7th February, 2019.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 201 202 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, intentional commission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, abetment---Bail, refusal of---Role of abetment; punishment---Scope---Petitioners (two in number) were not nominated in the FIR, however, during investigation they were attributed the role of abetment---Record revealed that murder of the deceased, in the present case, was committed by the main accused with the active connivance of the petitioners---Time and place of the occurrence was admitted---Deceased was murdered in a very brutal manner----Offence under S. 109, P.P.C. also entailed same punishment as provided for the main offence---Prima facie case existed against both the petitioners---Bail was refused to the petitioners, in circumstances.
Zafar Iqbal for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27 of 2019).
Dy. Advocate-General for the State (in both cases).
Tanveer Akhtar for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No.28 of 2019).
Date of hearing: 7th February, 2019.
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---Since Criminal Misc. Nos.27/2019 and 28/2018 are arising out of one and the same matter, therefore, these are being disposed of through this single judgment.
Criminal Misc. No. 27/2019 Mir Alam v. The State
2. The allegation against the petitioner as revealed during investigation are that he paid and advance amount of Rs.10,000/- for murder of deceased Rahimullah. The petitioner is charged for abetment of the offence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is charged for abetment of the offence and the amount paid to the main accused Syed Akbar has not been recovered from the principal accused during investigation. The so called extra judicial confession is devoid of any legal force. There is no worth reliance evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The statements of the witnesses have been recorded 4/5 days after recovery of dead body, which are not admissible in evidence.
Criminal Misc. No.28/2019 Sher Afzal v. The State
4. As stated above the murder of one Rehimullah was committed by one of the accused Syed Akbar. The petitioner is also charged for abetment of the offence.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner/accused nor his name finds mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner/accused is charged under sections 201/202, P.P.C., which offences are bailable. The case is one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling him for concession of bail.
6. The murder of Rehimullah was committed by one Syed Akbar in active connivance of the above petitioners/accused. The record of the case scanned with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The time/place of occurrence is not denied rather admitted. The deceased was murdered in a very brutal manner and with the active connivance of the petitioner/accused. The offence under section 109 also entails the same punishment as provided for the main offence. There exists a prima facie case against both the accused. The bail petitions of both the petitioners/accused are declined accordingly.
MQ/5/GB Bail refused.