2001 P Cr (PLP)
ZAMIR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAMIR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (ZAMIR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- I have heard Mr. Haji Shafi Muhammad learned counsel on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned Assistant Advocate General for the State. The latter opposes the bail plea of the applicant.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392/337-H(2)/215/34
Bail-- Accused armed with a Kalashnikov and his companions armed with lethal weapons had allegedly barged into the house of the complainant and snatched the valuables at gun point
Kalashnikov and the robbed T. V. had been recovered from the possession of accused
Eye-witnesses in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. had supported the prosecution version fully implicating the accused
Bail was .declined to accused in circumstances.
S. 497
Principle
Only tentative assessment of evidence is to be made and deeper evaluation of the same is not warranted by law for the purpose of bail.
Judgment & Decree
(1) One T.V. Philips Co. 14" size black colour plastic body, valued Rs.12,000. (2) One V.C.R. National Co. 340NV, steel body, Serial No.B3KF 13345 valued Rs.8,000 (3) One watch Seiko-5, golden dial, and chain, Rs.1,500. (4) Cash Rs.11,000 total Rs.32,500. (1) One Rado Watch golden chain, original value Rs.15,000. (2) Cash Rs.4,000 total Rs.19,000 (1) One watch Zeenat Co. valued Rs.500. (2) Cash Rs.700 total Rs.1,200 (1) One Seiko-5 watch valued Rs.1,500. (2) Cash Rs.1,100 total Rs.2.600. The applicant applied for bail before the trial Court but his bail plea was dismissed by impugned order, dated 30-6-2000. I have heard Mr. Haji Shafi Muhammad learned counsel on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned Assistant Advocate General for the State. The latter opposes the bail plea of the applicant. The perusal of material placed on record shows that the applicant on the fateful day duly armed with kalashnikov and his companions armed with lethal weapons, barged into the house of the complainant. At the gun-point they snatched the valuables. The weapon of offence i.e. kalashnikov and snatched T.V. were recovered from the possession of applicant. The factum of robbery committed by the applicant with his companions is supported by three eye-witnesses in their 161, Cr.P.C. statements. They have fully implicated the applicant as one of the culprit. The delay in the F.I.R. hall been properly explained. It is common practice that in such circumstances in the first instance people usually avoid to report the matter to police and try to get property restored. So far the contention that co-accused Badaruddin, Allan and Paryal were granted bail by the trial Court, therefore, applicant is also entitled to bail on the rule of consistency is misconceived. The copy of the order of the grant of bail to them has not been supplied. However, the case of those three accused is distinguishable. The allegation against them is of receiving Rs.1,000 for expenses in connection with restoration of robbed property. Moreover, for the purpose of bail only tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence is not warranted bylaw. Consequently the bail application stands dismissed. The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the learned trial Court shall not be influenced, thereby in any manner whatsoever and it shall be free to arrive at its own independent conclusion after the evidence is recorded in the matter. N.H.Q./Z-14/K Bail refused.