Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2187 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Muhammad Murad vs Jameel Ahmed S

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

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2187 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Muhammad Murad VS Jameel Ahmed S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Petition for cancellation of bail---Accused-respondents were charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant---As per record, the grounds which prevailed upon the Trial Court to grant bail were that the accused-respondents were shifted to judicial custody and were no more required by the police and that during the period of remand nothing incriminating was recovered from their possession---Most crucial point which persuaded the Trial Court to extend the concession of bail was that the accused-respondents were not present at the place of incident, which was evident from the CDR reports showing that they made entry at two FC check-posts, squaring their case within the ambit of further inquiry---Held, that authenticity of the CDR and relevance thereof was yet to be proved by the accused- respondents, which at present stage was not a conclusive proof of plea of alibi---Record reflected that the deponents, who swore affidavits with regard to plea of alibi, were not produced before the Court, thus in their absence and obviously unless they were subjected to a query by the Court no definite opinion could be formed thereof---As far as the entries at the check-post were concerned, unless the Officials were produced by the defence and cross-examined by the prosecution, no explicit reliance could be placed upon such documents as the same were yet to be proved during the trial---Absence of recovery of the crime weapon alone did not entitle the accused for the concession of bail, unless the case was one of further inquiry---In the present case, one of the accused-respondents had been specifically nominated and assigned the role of firing upon the deceased, whose unnatural death caused by firearm had been confirmed by Medico-Legal Certificate, and the commission of murder from close proximity with no question of mis-identity had also strengthened the case of prosecution---Thus, there were reasonable grounds to believe that said respondent-accused was prima facie involved in an offence punishable with death or life incarceration, which debarred him from the concession of bail as contemplated under clause (1) of S.497, of Cr.P.C.---Role of other accused-respondent was distinguishable as he was not attributed any overt act, except being present at the crime scene with Kalashnikov and alleged to have advanced threats of dire consequences---Role of said accused-respondent squared within the ambit of clause (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., entitling him for concession of bail, who had rightly been admitted to bail by the Trial Court, which needed not to be meddled with---Applicant had made out a case for cancellation of bail against accused-respondent No.1 but not against accused-respondent No.2---Bail granted to accused-respondent No.1 by the Trial Court was cancelled, whereas the application for cancellation of bail to the extent of accused-respondent No.2 was dismissed, who shall continue to remain on bail.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2187 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Muhammad Murad vs Jameel Ahmed S — 2024 YLR 2187 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR