Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Haji RAFEED GUL VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Abdul Latif KhanMian Mohibullah Kakakhel
2016 P Cr. L J Note 56 [Peshawar] Before Abdul Latif Khan, J Haji RAFEED GUL and 2 others---Petitioners Versus The STATE and another---Respondents Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 316-P of 2015, decided on 9th March, 2015. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.384, 387, 506 & 34---Extortion, putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion, criminal intimidation---Bail, grant of---No evidence was on record, regarding the allegations of extortion, land grabbing etc., which could connect accused persons with the commission of offence---Mere allegation was not sufficient to establish the guilt of accused persons; when there was no evidence of any person, where land was grabbed forcibly by accused persons, or from whom any demand of extortion had been made---Civil litigations, were pending between the parties in the court---Due to said civil litigation, false implication of accused persons in the present case by the complainant, could not be ruled out---Offence with which, accused persons were charged, did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---In all cases which were not punishable with 10 years imprisonment or above, grant of bail was a rule and refusal an exception---Mere involvement of accused persons in the criminal case, did not bar the concession of bail to him; and every case had to be decided on its own merits---Prosecution had failed to make out a case against accused persons, who despite remaining in police custody, had made no confession before the competent court---Accused persons who were behind the bars, since their arrest were no more required to the local Police for further investigation---Keeping accused persons behind the bars, would serve no useful purpose---Accused, were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Mian Mohibullah Kakakhel for Petitioner. Sohail Akhtar for the Complainant. M. Riaz Khan Painda Khel, Additional A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 9th March, 2015.
JUDGMENT ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Petitioners Haji Rafeed Gut, Zafar and Touseef seek post arrest bail in case FIR No.33 dated 28.01.2015, registered under sections 384/387/506/34, P.P.C., at P.S. Bilitang. 2. As per prosecution case, complainant Sharif Khan through written application lodged report against petitioners for extortion, criminal intimidation, threatening the peoples of the area and keeping them in fear of death and that the petitioners also belong to Qabza group/land grabbers and deals with such business. Consequently on the basis of his written report instant FIR was registered against the petitioners. Arguments heard record perused. 3. Perusal of record reveals that regarding the allegations of extortion, land grabbing etc there is no evidence on record which could connect the petitioners with the commission of offence. Mere allegation is not sufficient to establish the guilt of petitioners when there is no evidence of any such person whose land was grabbed forcibly by petitioners or from whom any demand of extortion has been made. 4. Admittedly civil litigations are pending between the parties in Courts therefore, due to said civil litigation, false implication of petitioners in the instant case by complainant cannot be ruled out. The offences with which the petitioners are charged do not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) in all the cases which are not punishable with 10 years imprisonment or above, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Mere involvement of petitioners in the criminal case does not bar the concession of bail to him and every case has to be decided on its own merits. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to make out a case against the petitioners who despite remaining in police custody have made no confession before the competent Court. They are behind the bars since their arrest and no more required to the local police for further investigation therefore keeping them behind the bars would serve no useful purpose. 5. In view of what has been observed above, this petition is allowed and all the petitioners are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and, men of means.
HBT/130/P Bail granted.