Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Syed AMAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Ali BaigBasharat Ali
2019 P Cr. L J Note 9 [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] Before Ali Baig, J Syed AMAN and another---Petitioners Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No. 116 of 2018, decided on 8th August, 2018. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F, 448 & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, damiyah, common intention, possessing unlicensed weapon---Bail, refusal of---Complainant lodged FIR against petitioner (his son-in-law) that he, along with three co-accused, entered into his house; petitioner and one co-accused opened fire on his family members, causing bullet injuries, whereas two other co-accused attempted to abduct his daughter---Accused persons also pelted stones upon the family members---Petitioner contended that matrimonial dispute was pending between the parties in the civil court---Admittedly, the petitioner/accused were directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR and offence under S. 324, P.P.C. fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Petitioner and one co-accused had made fire shots at the complainant party resultantly, son and daughter of the complainant had sustained bullet injuries---Five crime empties of .30 bore pistol had been recovered from the place of occurrence and weapon of offence had also been recovered from the possession of petitioner by the police, as such he was not entitled to concession of bail---Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code ( XLV of 1860 ), Ss. 324, 337-F, 448 & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, damiyah, common intention, possession of unlicensed weapon---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Absence of specific role attributed to the petitioner/accused---Scope---Complainant lodged FIR against his son-in-law (main accused ) that he, along with three co-accused, entered into his house; main accused and one co-accused opened fire on his family members, resulting bullet injuries, whereas two other co-accused (one of them was present petitioner) attempted to abduct his daughter, accused persons also pelted stones upon the family members---No specific role in the occurrence had been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR---No weapon of offence had been recovered on the pointation of the petitioner, hence case to the extent of petitioner required further inquiry and he was entitled to concession of bail---Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Basharat Ali for Petitioners. Dy. Advocate-General for the State. Date of hearing: 7th August, 2018. ORDER ALI BAIG, J.---Petitioners/Accused namely Sayed Aman and Wazeed seek post arrest bail in case FIR No.52/2017 dated 17.05.2017 registered under sections 324, 337-F and 448/34, P.P.C. and case FIR No 28/2018 registered under section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 at Police Station City, Chilas. 2. Succinctly facts of case as disclosed in the FIR No.52/2017 are that on 17.05.2017 accused/petitioner namely Syed Aman and his co-accused namely Riaz son of Tota assaulted on the complainant and his family members by enterring into their house and opened fires on them, whereas petitioner/accused namely Wazeed and Saif Ullah attempted to abduct daughter of the complainant namely Kulsoom. Resultantly, son of the complainant namely Sharifullah and daughter of the complainant namely Farhat sustained bullet injuries and the accused/petitioners have also pelted stones upon the complainant and his family members and complainant also sustained stone injuries. Motive behind the occurrence is stated to be that daughter of complainant namely Mst. Kulsoom had contracted marriage with petitioner/accused namely Syed Aman about 6/7 years ago and relations between the above named couple had become strained/soured and resultantly, the daughter of complainant namely Mst. Kulsoom has filed suit for dissolution marriage in the civil Court Chilas against the accused/petitioner namely Syed Aman. 3. Earlier the petitioners/accused had filed bail petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Diamer which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Diamer vide order dated 22-05-2018, hence this petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/accused argued that sections 337-F and 448, P.P.C. are bailable, whereas section 324, P.P.C. does not attract to the case of the petitioners/accused. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that a civil suit/matrimonial dispute between the complainant party and petitioner/accused namely Syed Aman is subjudice in the Civil Court Chilas, therefore, the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners/accused in this case with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that no any weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner/accused namely Wazeed, hence the petitioners/accused are entitled for concession of bail. 5. On the other hand the learned State counsel (Dy. A.G.) controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and contended that the petitioners/accused are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR. The learned Dy. Advocate General further argued that offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and weapon of offence has been recovered on the pointation of petitioner/accused namely Syed Aman, hence the petitioners/accused are not entitled for concession of bail. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused as well as the learned Dy. Advocate General and perused the record with their able assistance. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners/accused are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR and offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Petitioner/accused namely Syed Aman and his co-accused namely Riaz had opened fire shots on the complainant party and resultantly son and daughter of the complainant have sustained bullet injuries. Five crime empties of .30 bore pistol have been recovered from the place of occurrence and weapon of offence i.e. .30 bore pistol has also been recovered from the possession of accused/petitioner namely Syed Aman, by the police, as such he is not entitled for concession of bail. 8. As far as involvement of accused/petitioner namely Wazeed in this case is concerned, no specific role in the occurrence has been attributed to the above named accused/petitioner in the FIR. Moreover, no weapon of offence has been recovered on the pointation of petitioner/accused namely Wazeed, hence case to the extent of petitioner/accused namely Wazeed son of Iskander requires further inquiry. Thus, petitioner/accused namely Wazeed is entitled for concession of bail. 9. For what has been discussed above, this petition to the extent of petitioner/accused namely Wazeed is allowed and petitioner/accused Wazeed is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and this petition to the extent of petitioner/accused namely Syed Aman is dismissed and bail to the above named petitioner is declined. File. MQ/182/GB Bail granted.