Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDULLAH JAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Malik Haq NawazNaseem Akhtar and Muzaffaruddin
2019 Y L R Note 107 [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] Before Malik Haq Nawaz, J ABDULLAH JAN and another---Petitioners Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No. 152 of 2019, decided on 20th June, 2019. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 109 & 34---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Bail, refusal of---Unexplained noticeable abscondence---Validity---First Information Report and statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. revealed that the petitioners were directly charged in the FIR---Weapons of offence had been recovered from the petitioners---Victim who was critically injured in the occurrence had also charged the petitioners in his statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Petitioners remained absconder for a long period---Absconder lost some of his substantive rights guaranteed to him under the law---Even otherwise, there existed a prima facie case against the petitioners---Bail was refused to the petitioners, in circumstances.
PLD 1985 SC 402 ref. Naseem Akhtar and Muzaffaruddin for Petitioners. Raja Zia-ur-Rahman for the Complainant. Dy. A.G. for the State. Date of hearing: 20th June, 2019. ORDER MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioners have been booked for the offences under sections 324/109/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No.24/2017 dated 24.08.2017 registered at Police Station Juglote District Gilgit. 2. Brief facts of the case have been mentioned in the impugned judgment dated 30.5.2019. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-- "Brief facts of prosecution's case according to FIR are that petitioners/accused along with other accomplices attacked on one Muhammad Jamil and attempted to murder him with a sharp edge weapon and also fired on him, complainant and one Syed Amir. Bullets hit Muhammad Jamil and Syed Amir and they got bullet injury. Hence FIR No. 24/2017 has been registered in Police Station Juglote Gilgit under sections 324/34 and 109, P.P.C. on written application of complainant." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was a night occurrence and identity of the petitioners in dark light was not possible. The names of the petitioners have been mentioned in the FIR by the complainant by guess work. There is no independent evidence on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged offences. Lastly that provisions of section 324, P.P.C. are not attracted in the instant case. The recoveries are false and planted. The case of the petitioners is one of the further inquiry and they are entitled for concession of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on PLD 1996 Kar. 372, PLD 1996 Lah. 261, 2006 PCr.LJ 1051 and 2005 YLR 3229. 4. On the other hand the Dy. A. G. for the State and learned counsel for complainant contended that the petitioners are directly charged in the FIR. The weapons of offences have been recovered from the petitioners. The victim has charged the petitioners for a specific role and the motive for commission of offences is also established. Per learned Dy. A. G the petitioners after commission of offence went underground and were arrested after hectic efforts by the local police. They relied on 2005 YLR 242, 1999 PCr.LJ 866, 2004 PCr.LJ 1087, 2003 MLD 1398 and 2009 PCr.LJ 1058. 5. It is evident from the FIR and the statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. that the petitioners are directly charged in the FIR, weapons of offence have been recovered from the petitioners. The victim who was critically injured in the occurrence has also charged the petitioners in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The petitioners/accused remained absconder for a long period. The absconder of a criminal case loses some of his substantive rights guaranteed to him under law. The wisdom is drawn from PLD 1985 SC 402. The relevant citation is reproduced as under:- "Abscondence, in proper cases, could be treated as a very important piece of evidence---Fugitive from law and Courts, held, would lose some of their normal rights granted by procedural as also substantive law-- Unexplained noticeable abscondence dis-entitled a person to concession of bail notwithstanding merits of case---Accused by his such conduct thwarts investigation qua him in which valuable evidence like recoveries, etc. was simply lost or was made impossible to be collected by his conduct---Accused, therefore, could not seek a reward for such conduct in becoming fugitive from law---Bail requesting refused to such accused in circumstances." 6. The long and unexplained abscondence, coupled with the facts, that there is even otherwise a prima facie case against the petitioners, therefore, the instant bail petition is dismissed being meritless. 7. Bail refused. MQ/83/GB Bail refused.