2022 SCMR 2111
S. 497 --- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 337-F(i), 148 & 149---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Murderous assault---Bail, refusal of---Accused was duly nominated in the crime report and a specific role of firing at the head of complainant's father had been ascribed to him---According to medical evidence, the injury ascribed to the accused was present on the body of the deceased and the same became the cause of his death---Occurrence took place at 08.00 a.m. while the matter was reported to the police at 10.45 a.m.---Keeping in view the inter se distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station i.e. 13 kilometers, the same would be considered a promptly lodged FIR---Incident was a day light occurrence and the parties were known to each other prior to the occurrence, therefore, there was no chance of mis-identification---Allegation levelled against the accused was also supported by the statements of three injured witnesses---Weapon of offence had also been recovered from the accused---Although there was a cross-version for the occurrence but therein neither the accused was mentioned as present at the place of occurrence nor any claim of right of private defence of person or property had been made on his behalf, therefore, no benefit could be extended to the accused---Co-accused of the accused had been granted bail by the Trial Court, but the case of accused was different from them---Co-accused were ascribed simple injuries on the person of the injured whereas, the accused had been ascribed a specific role of making fire shot at the head of the deceased, which proved fatal---Tentative assessment of the record made it clear that sufficient material was available on the record to connect the accused with the commission of the crime---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and bail was refused.
S. 497 ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Murderous assault---Bail---Case of cross-versions---Mere existence of a cross-version could not alone be considered a sufficient ground to grant bail to an accused.
0 Comments