PLJ 2013 Cr.C 1007
Present to: Rauf Ahmad Sheikh and Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah
MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ
Versus
STATE and another
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Control of Narcotic
Substances Act, (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)--Bail, grant of--Allegation
of--Recovery of charas--FIR does not reveal if the charas was weighed
after removing the paper in which it was wrapped so its exact weight
cannot be ascertained, which may more or less than one Kilogram--From
this angle, the case hovers over the border line of Sections 9-B and 9-C
of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997--No one has seen the,
petitioner while selling the charas so alleged recovery of scale and
weights does not show that he was involved in the selling the same--No
evidence was available on the record to show that the sum of Rs.900/-
allegedly recovered from the petitioner was, in fact, sale
proceeds--Admittedly, the petitioner was not involved in any case under
the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in the past--He was behind
the bars for a period of more than three months and his person was no
more required for further investigation--Bail granted.
Judgement Result: Bail granted
PLJ 2013 Cr.C 1005
Present to: Kh. Imtiaz Ahmad
ASLAM PERVAIZ
Versus
STATE and another
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code,
(XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Dishonoured of
cheque--Agreement between parties that the land would be transferred in
favour of petitioner--Bail cannot be refused on this ground if
otherwise the petitioner is entitled for his bail on merits--Petitioner
was previously non convict--Copy of the sale deed has also been produced
by the counsel for the complainant--This sale deed clearly showed that
it was only person who was the vendee and no where the name of the
petitioner has been mentioned nor the police has ever recorded the
statement of said person that the land has been transferred in his name
on the asking of the petitioner--The petitioner has been sent to
judicial lock up and was no more required for the investigation
purpose--The offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause and even
otherwise the case of the petitioner definitely required further
inquiry--Petition was allowed.
Judgement Result: Bail granted
PLJ 2013 Cr.C 997
Present to: Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi and Shahid Bilal Hassan
ABID HUSSAIN & others
Versus
STATE & others
Pakistan
Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and
sentence--Challenge to--Prosecution has been able to prove the charge of
qatl-i-amd of deceased against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt
through the ocular account of unimpeachable character, which was
supported by the medical evidence and also corroborated by the recording
of the FIR with promptitude--As such the conviction recorded by the
trial Court against appellant u/S. 302(b), PPC was maintained--So far as
the quantum of sentence is concerned, it was found that the occurrence
had taken place at the spur of moment for some immediate cause as when
the PWs attracted to the spot, both the deceased and the appellant were
found grappling with each other when the fire was made by the latter,
but what happened immediately before the occurrence resulting into
commission thereof could not be brought on the record by either
side--The motive as well as the recovery also could not be proved--In
such facts and circumstances awarding of the capital sentence of death
to appellant by the trial Court through the impugned judgment was not
warranted, which was converted to life, imprisonment.
Judgement Result: Appeal disposed of
PLJ 2013 Cr.C 994
Present to: Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi
Khawaja MATEEN YOUSAF
Versus
STATE & another
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code,
(XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail, grant of--Dishonoured of cheque--Sentence
does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C.--In
cases not punishable with death, transportation of life or 10 years
imprisonment, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an
exception--Petitioner was previous non-convict and behind the bars--As
far as his involvement in six other cases, the same were registered at
the instance of business partners of the petitioner/complainant--Even
otherwise, he has also been granted bail in the aforesaid
cases--Investigation was completed, his corpus was no more required by
police for further investigation--Bail accepted.
Judgement Result: Bail accepted
PLJ 2013 Cr.C 991
Present to: Miss Aalia Neelum
NAEEM ANWAR and another
Versus
STATE and another
Cancellation
of bail-- ----Principle--Considerations for the cancellation of bail
are quite different from the consideration for the grant of bail--Once a
bail has been granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction while
exercising its discretion in a judicious manner, there must be strong
and exceptional reasons for its cancellation--For cancellation of bail,
very strong, exceptional and cogent reasons regarding misusing, abusing,
hampering with the prosecution evidence and repetition of same offence.
Judgement Result: Bail dismissed
PLJ 2013 Cr.C 991
Present to: Miss Aalia Neelum
NAEEM ANWAR and another
Versus
STATE and another
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code,
(XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/337-A(i), 337-F(iii), 337-A(iii), 337-F(vi),
148, 149, 109--Bail, dismissal of--Petitioners were nominated in the FIR
and the role of causing injuries was ascribed to them--As per F.I.R.
petitioner fired at the deceased with his pistol and caused fire-arm
injury on the left side of neck of deceased which was duly reflected in
the post-mortem report i.e. injury and his case was distinguishable from
that of his co-accused--Ocular account was in line with the medical
evidence--The prosecution has sufficient material with it to connect the
petitioner with the commission of offence--The case of the petitioner
falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--In these
circumstances, pre-arrest bail petition of petitioner was hereby
dismissed.
Judgement Result: Bail dismissed
PLJ 2013 Cr.C 986
Present to: Syed Muhammad Kazim Raza Shamsi
SHAUKAT ALI
Versus
STATE and another
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code,
(XLV of 1860), 1860, Ss. 302, 109, 148 & 149--Bail, grant
of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Involvement in murder of
deceased--Petitioner was holding the deceased by his arm--Animosity
inter-se--Brother of the petitioner was murdered and in this respect an
FIR was lodged against the present complainant side--The involvement of
the petitioner with the allegation of holding the deceased by his arm,
appears to involve whole of the family members of the petitioner as one
arm was allegedly hold by the petitioner while the other one by
co-accused when Haji brother of petitioner fired at the
deceased--Similarly, the determination of the vicarious liability at
this stage is not possible--Admittedly, the parties are having animosity
inter-se therefore, in these circumstances, determination of the role
played by the petitioner in the incident requires further inquiry--In
view of this, the petitioner is found entitled for the concession of
bail.
Judgement Result: Bail allowed
PLJ 2013 Cr.C 976
Present to: Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi and Shahid Bilal Hassan
STATE & other
Versus
JARAY KHAN & others
Pakistan
Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and
sentence--Challenge to--Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of
the appellant was shown to have been effected from the house of the
co-accused--Moreover, no person from the locality was joined to witness
the said recovery and provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C. were violated
as the alleged recovery witness was admittedly residing 13/14 kilometers
away from that place--Even otherwise the recovery of crime weapon is
only a corroborative piece of evidence, which by itself is not
sufficient to convict the accused in the absence of substantive
evidence--ocular testimony and as such there is no substantive piece of
evidence which requires to be corroborated through the recoveries--Thus,
the recovery evidence in the present circumstances of the case has no
weight--Eyewitnesses were not present at the spot--So the motive alone
cannot be made basis for maintaining the conviction against the
appellant without any other evidence and even otherwise the trial Court
has already disbelieved the motive through the impugned judgment, which
need not be further discussed by High Court--Appeal accepted.
Judgement Result: Appeal accepted
