Fida Ullah vs State S — 2024 YLR 1823 GILGIT-BALTISTAN-SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT

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

Fida Ullah VS State S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324 , 109, 114 & 34---Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, Art. 75(13)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment while the abettor being present, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations of general nature --- Deficient / contradictory incriminating material --- Effect---There was general allegation against the petitioners in the FIR that they committed the murder of deceased by causing firearm injuries --- No specific injury on the person of deceased had been attributed to the petitioners--- Although it had specifically been mentioned in the FIR that the petitioners caused firearm injuries on the personof the deceased and committed his murder while citing two persons as eye-witnesses in the FIR, yet record revealed that both the said witnesses, in their respective statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., did not support the prosecution story as narrated by the complainant in the FIR --- According to the statements of said witnesses , they had not seen the petitioners while causing firearm injures on the persons of the deceased and the injured , rather as per their statements they had seen the petitioners while running towards the Gilgit Baltistan Assembly---During investigation the Police recorded the statement of the injured (passerby) wherein he categorically deposed that he had not seen any person while causing firearm injuries on his person as well as on the person of the deceased--- Police also recorded the statement of other witness of the FIR allegedly present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Said witness in his statement did not disclose the name of the petitioners rather he stated that after the occurrence, he saw two persons running towards Gilgit Baltistan Assembly--- Although the Police recovered pistols from the possession of the petitioners yet such recovery was inconsequential as no specific weapon (pistols) were mentioned by the complainant in the FIR and no empty was secured by the police from the place of occurrence---Prima facie no cogent evidence was available on record connecting the petitioners with the commission ofpresent occurrence ---Facts and circumstances of the case had brought the case of the petitioners within the ambit of further inquiry ---Petitioners were behind bars since their arrest and were no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation ---No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period---Petitioners were admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Fida Ullah vs State S — 2024 YLR 1823 GILGIT-BALTISTAN-SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR