Adnan Hussain vs State S — 2026 YLR 1091 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

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

Adnan Hussain VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A, 337-F, 500, 506, 506(ii), 353, 342, 160, 144, 186, 147 & 148---Causing shajjah, ghayr-jaifah, defamation, criminal intimidation, assault or criminal force used to deter a public servant from discharging their duty, wrongful confinement, affray, joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, voluntarily obstructing a public servant from discharging their public functions, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accused/petitioner were that he and other accused persons in furtherance of their common intention attacked government officials who were deputed for conducting the bidding process of dead fallen trees---From perusal of record it revealed that total 36 persons were nominated in the FIR---Out of 36 persons/accused some co-accused of the present petitioners had been discharged by the prosecution under S.169 Cr.P.C and some co-accused had been released on bail, particularly two co-accused persons had been attributed similar role in the FIR who had been released on bail---Hence, rule of consistency applied to the case of present petitioners/accused---There was also six hours delay in lodging of FIR which created doubt regarding involvement of the petitioners/accused in the instant case---Moreover, all offences reelected in the FIR were bailable except offence under S.506(ii), P.P.C, which too did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, thus grant of bail in such like offence was rule and refusal was an exception---Furthermore the investigation of the case had been completed and the petitioners/accused were no more required for further investigation---Petitioners/accused were students and their detention in prison for indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose, rather their studies would be suffered---Bail petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

Adnan Hussain vs State S — 2026 YLR 1091 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR