Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.87 of 2014, decided on 6th August, 2014.

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Bail, refusal of---Accused who was directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R., had taken plea of alibi, contending that on the date, the occurrence took place, he was on official duty, but he failed to disclose the nature of his official duty---Plea of alibi, taken by accused, was not supported with all particulars---Accused, being a Police Official, made entries in both the Roznamchas, but failed in making such entry in the relevant register as to when he reached back after doing his alleged official duty, which was very necessary, in the attending circumstances of the case---Contention of accused was that he had come along with some accused persons to produce them before the Anti-Terrorism Court, but no order sheet maintained by the relevant court in the relevant case file, had been appended by accused with his bail application---Accused having failed to prove his plea of alibi and no other ground was available for the release of accused on bail, his bail application was dismissed, in circumstances. Malik Haq Nawaz for Petitioner. Haji Jamal Khan for the Complainant. Assistant Advocate General for the Complainant.

Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.50 of 2013 registered under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. with Police Station, Darel, District Diamer. 2. The relevant facts which compelled the complainant for lodging of the F.I.R. as narrated in the F.I.R. are that on 16-12-2013 at about 11:00 hours Wasal Khan and Khurshid Ahmad the brother and nephew respectively of the complainant went to visit Akbar Syed resident of Village Darote. On return when they reached near the house of accused Walayat Khan, the petitioner and the co-accused namely Mohammad Amin, Suleman and Ali Aman who were way-laid, carried out indiscriminate firing and murdered both Wasal Khan and Khurshid Ahmad and this double murder was committed at the behest of Alif Khan and Bashir residents of Darote. On the basis of above information conveyed by the complainant, the S.H.O. concerned registered the case against the petitioners and the co-accused. 3. The petitioner/accused preferred application for bail first in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Diamer who through order dated 30-6-2014 declined the application, hence this application for same relief on same grounds. 4. Malik Haq Nawaz, Advocate while appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a police personal serving under the control and command of S.P. Diamer and at the time when the occurrence took place he was on duty at Gilgit and despite of the fact he was implicated in the case to suffer him with financial losses and to convey bad message to his senior to damage his position as police personnel. In support of the plea the learned counsel has appended a report entered in Roznamcha maintained in police line Jutyal showing the petitioner was present on 16-12-2013 at Gilgit and during the course of arguments he produced a report of similar nature entered in the Roznamcha maintained in DPL Chilas showing the petitioner was deputed on 14-12-2014 for producing some accused persons before ATC, Gilgit. The learned counsel prayed for the release of the accused on bail. 5. While resisting the application, the learned A.A.-G. assisted by Haji Jamal Khan advocate submitted that the accused is directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. and the occurrence being daylight has been witnessed by the impartial witnesses as such the accused could not be held entitled for the facility of bail. 6. The plea of alibi taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt, could be taken as a valid ground for bail provided, the plea is supported by all particular facts and circumstances so justifying. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner/accused who was serving as F.C. in police department Diamer but on 14-12-2013 he along with other police personal came to Gilgit along with some accused persons to produce them before Anti-Terrorism Court, Gilgit. DSP Muhammad Amin and I.P. Shah Alam senior police officers statedly were also with petitioner etc. According to the entry dated 16-12-2013 made in Roznamcha maintained in Police Station Jutial, the accused/petitioner was at Gilgit on the date in connection with some official duty when on the same date and time the in hand murders took place at Darel. According to the plea of alibi, the petitioner, on 16-12-2013, was abstained at Gilgit by I.P. Shah Alam but the learned counsel failed to disclose the nature of the official duty for the performance of the same, the petitioner was directed to stay at Gilgit by I.P. Shah Alam. In my opinion the plea of alibi is not supported with all particulars because there is no evidence brought on record by the accused that on 16-12-2013, after 11:30 A.M, he went back to Chilas but the record is silent about the source of transportation he used from Gilgit to Chilas and neither any ticket in this regard has brought on the record. The petitioner/accused made entries in both the Roznamchas but failed in making such entry in the relevant register when he reached back at Chilas which was very necessary in the attending circumstances of the case. 7. According to the learned counsel the petitioner/accused came to Gilgit along with some accused persons to produce them before Anti-Terrorism Court but no order sheet maintained by the relevant Court in the relevant case file has appended by the accused with the application. Suppose that the petitioner came to Gilgit with some other police persons under the command and control of DSP Muhammad Amir and I.P. Shah Alam and he remained at Gilgit till 16-12-2013 at about 11:30 hours when exactly at the time the occurrence took place at Darel but the seniors of the accused namely DSP Muhammad Amir and I.P. Shah Alam remained mum during the whole investigation and did nothing to save their innocent subordinate from the charge. Why these police officers did not appear before S.P. Diamer for getting the accused exonerated from the charge saying that the accused was with them in Gilgit at the relevant time. On the other hand a report dated 17-12-2013 submitted by S.H.O. Police Station, Darel to S.P. Diamer shows the accused was absent from his duty at the time when the occurrence took place. The documents on which the plea of alibi is basing if coupled with the said report and the ocular evidence brought on the record provides no ground for the release of the accused on bail. 8. Consequently, the application is dismissed being devoid of legal force. File. HBT/12/GB Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.