Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 805 of 1982, decided on 26th March, 1983.
‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑Case being of material discrepancies in F.I.R. and confessional statements of accused‑‑F.I.R. lodged after inordinate delay of three days‑‑Main culprit having been abandoned during investigation‑‑Additional Sessions Judge rightly exercised discretion in granting bail to accused‑‑Cancellation of bail refused in circumstances.
Muhammad Ashraf Khan Gadoon for Petitioner.
Jalaluddin Khan and Amirzada Khan; Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th March, 1983.
Muhammad Ashraf Khan Gadoon, Advocate, for the complainant petitioner present. Wazir Zada and Muhammad Ayub accused‑respondent present in person while Umar Gul accused‑respondent is absent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan at Sawabi granted bail to the accused‑respondent finding it a case of material discrepancies in the F.I.R. and confessional statements of the accused‑respondents with regard to the time and nature of occurrence and further that it was a case of inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. of about three days. One Ibrahim has been charged in the F.I.R. as the main culprit but it appears that during the course of investigation, he has been abandoned. In the F.I.R. the complainant party reportedly placed a D.B. shotgun and a 7 m.m. rifle both licensed with Ibrahim who is not an Arms Dealer and the complainant party has itself committed the illegality by entering their licensed firearms to him. There have been recovered rifle and shotgun from Rahim and Faqir for whom themselves the firearms were unlicensed but it appears that they have not been challaned under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. Accused‑respondents are being charged for the offence on the basis of their confessional statements and the testimonies of Rahim and Faqir etc. It is a case of material discrepancies and the Court of Additional Sessions Judge appears to have rightly exercised his discretion in granting bail to the accused‑respondent.
These applications, therefore, stand rejected.
H.A.K. Appeal rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer