FAZAL MABOOD versus THE STATE THROUGH S.H.O., POLICE STATION GHALEGAY
Section 497 (2) of the Explosive Code (XLV of 1860), section 353/324/120/124 A, 148/149/365/427 Explosives Act (VI of 1908), section 3/4 offenses against property ( Enforcement Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (2) (3) (4) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 to prevent a civil servant from discharging his duties by assault or criminal force. FIR accused of attempting to commit murder, murder, and concealment design, attempt to cause and detonate crime, rebellion, abduction, mischief, explosion and further investigation of Haramba, terrorism offense, bail. None of them were named, allegedly Was stolen / As reported by the FIR that was taken away by law enforcement personnel, some recovery notes were recovered from them which were on file to show that The damaged check post was recovered from some articles, such as bricks and iron. Some people's homes, but they also did not link the accused to the crime, because none of the men had named the accused in connection with the sale of the alleged goods but against the accused. Only piece of evidence was told that about 19 possessions of stolen iron from the destroyed building were recovered from his house, he would not be able to link it to the commission of the crime substantially, and further investigation The matter is because of the fact that there was a question of the police outpost, even though in one of his statements under section 646464, the CCP had the guilt for the crime. Amzd, but it turns out to be the idea that the accused come FIR against persons of different nature
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
