Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ASLAM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Malik Haq NawazManzoor Hussain
2020 Y L R Note 142 [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] Before Malik Haq Nawaz, J ASLAM and another---Petitioners Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No. 246 of 2019, decided on 9th October, 2019. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-A(v), 147 & 506---Shajjah-i-mudihah, shajjah-i-damighah, rioting and criminal intimidation---Bail, refusal of---Scope---Accused persons sought post arrest bail as they were booked for an offence under Ss.337-A(ii), 147 & 506, P.P.C.---Accused persons were directly charged in the FIR---Offence under S.337-A(v), P.P.C. was not bailable---Victim had got a head injury which was declared as "grevious" by the Medical Officer---Prima facie case against the accused persons was made out and they were not entitled for concession of bail---Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Manzoor Hussain for Petitioners. Deputy Advocate General for the State. Muhammad Saleem for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 9th October, 2019. ORDER MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioners Aslam and Mukaram sons of Muhammad Akram have filed the instant post arrest bail application as they have been booked under section 337-A(ii)/147/ 506(2), P.P.C. vide FIR No.55/2019 Police Station Basin Gilgit. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent and two co-accused namely Hasnain and Asif have been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, while another accused namely Zaman has been released by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C. Per learned counsel the case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that section 337-A(v), P.P.C. is not included in the challan therefore, the refusal of the bail to the petitioners by the trial Court was not justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 2009 MLD 21. 3. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Muhammad Saleem, Advocate submitted that the petitioner/accused are directly nominated in the FIR Medico Legal Report reveals that the victim sustained head injuries, which was declared "GRIEVOUS" by the Medical Officer. The punishment provided under section 337-A(v), P.P.C. caries the punishment of 10 years, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioners are well connected with the offence and not entitle for concession of bail. 4. The petitioners are directly charged in the FIR. The offence under section 337-A(c), P.P.C. which is not bailable, the victim got head injury which has been declared "GRIEVOUS" by the Medical Officer. There is a prima facie case against the petitioners and they are not entitle for concession of bail. The bail petition is dismissed accordingly. 5. The instant Cr. Misc. bearing No.246/2019 is dismissed accordingly. SA/157/GB Bail declined.