Asim Ali vs State S — 2024 YLR 2234 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.

Asim Ali VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-D, 147, 148 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Attempt to commit murder, jaifah, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common intention, act of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was charged for causing firearm injuries to the injured/complainant---Petitioner was not nominated in the FIR---According to version of prosecution, the petitioner was identified through CCTV footage wherein it was shown that petitioner threw a stone on the procession/mob which gathered near a Chowk and thereafter petitioner was arrested in the case on 06.09.2022---No statement of any witness was recorded by the police in order to establish that the petitioner was identified through CCTV footage---Police did not mention the place where the CCTV Camera was installed through which the petitioner was identified---Perusal of record revealed that 16-suspects including the petitioner were identified through CCTV footage and they were arrested by the police but during investigation seven suspects were discharged by the police from the instant case under S.169, Cr.P.C.---In the FIR the complainant implicated two Police Officials who allegedly made firing on the peaceful passers by and worshipers near the mosque and during investigation they were arrested and identified but they were discharged by the police from the case under S.169, Cr.P.C.---Although the petitioner made alleged extra-judicial confession before the police while in police custody yet his statement was not recorded by Magistrate under S.164, Cr.P.C, despite the fact that police kept on producing the petitioner for getting his physical remand before the Magistrate---Veracity and admissibility of such evidence against the petitioner would be adjudged by the Trial Court after recording the prosecution's evidence---During investigation nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner---Case of the petitioner came within the ambit of further inquiry in circumstances---Co-accused, against whom there was allegation that he made ariel firing at the time of occurrence and he was identified through CCTV footage and that recovery of pistol 30-bore was also effected from his possession, was admitted to post arrest bail---Case of the petitioner was on better footing than the case of said co-accused who was admitted to post arrest bail, therefore, the petitioner was also entitled for concession of bail keeping in view the rule of consistency---Petitioner was arrested in this case on 06.09.2022 and he was behind the bars for a period of more than one year and was no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation---Trial of the case had not yet commenced---No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period because it was not known as to how much time would be consumed by the prosecution in completion of the trial---Petitioner was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Asim Ali vs State S — 2024 YLR 2234 GILGIT-BALTISTAN-SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR