HILAL KHATTAK vs State S — 2023 SCMR 1182 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

HILAL KHATTAK VS State S. 497(1)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311, 324, 452, 365, 337-A(ii), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, refusal of---Possibility of accused absconding or causing harm to alleged abductee---In the present case, the accused being the father of the alleged abductee appeared to have had the real motive for the commission of the alleged offences while the others abetted him in his cause---Most of the other accused persons were absconders, and the police had so far only succeeded to bring the accused and a co-accused person to justice---Thus there was a likelihood that the accused may also abscond if he was released on bail---Further, and more importantly, the alleged abductee had not yet been recovered---No one knew whether she was alive or not---There was a possibility that the accused may cause her harm or may coerce her to influence her evidence concerning the facts of the present case if he was released on bail---Two of the exceptions to grant of bail in offences not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C., i.e, likelihood of repeating the offence and influencing the witness were attracted in the present case---Case of the accused, therefore, attracted not one but almost all the three exceptions which justified the declining of bail even in offences that did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, leave was refused, and accused was refused bail with the directions that the concerned Inspector General of Police, shall personally look into the matter and depute a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police to supervise the investigation of the case and to ensure recovery of the alleged abductee at the earliest; that on recovery of the alleged abductee, she may be lodged in Dar-ul-Aman (or some other similar institution) for at least two days before recording her statement as to the facts of the case, so that she may be in a position to make her statement voluntarily without the undue influence of anyone, and her statement should preferably be recorded by the Magistrate concerned under section 164, Cr.P.C.

HILAL KHATTAK vs State S — 2023 SCMR 1182 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 SCMR