2008 PLP 1410 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RASHID — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1410 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RASHID — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1410 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1410 (MLD)?
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: 2008 PLP 1410 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RASHID — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Main accused, as per the F.I.R. had fired on the eyes of deceased and the said injury caused his death
Fire-arm was recovered from the said main accused and star witnesses had implicated him in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. and S.164, Cr.P.C.
Complainant, who had lodged the report on the information, was not, an eye-witness of the incident
Witnesses had not charged the applicant/ accused for firing or his being armed with T.T. Pistol; they only stated that he was present with the main accused
Investigating Officer had mentioned in the Challan that there was no evidence against the applicant/accused except that he had been challaned due to his presence at the spot treating same indicative of common intention
Validity--Common intention always bore out from the actions
Applicant/accused was not attributed any offence and there was no charge of possessing mens rea against him, from the prosecution side., as such, the case of applicant/accused was of further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
DR. QAMMARUDDIN BOHRA, J.
This criminal bail application has been filed against the rejection of the bail application by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, Malir, dated 23-4-2008 in Criminal Bail Application in Session case No.102 of 2008 relating to F.I.R. No. 14 of 2008 under section 302/34, P.P.C. police station Sukhan. Brief facts of the case according to the F.I.R. are that the complainant Haji Dil Muhammad had registered an F.I.R. on 9-2-2008, at 2345 hours at Police Station Sukhan, wherein he had stated that he is residing at Juma Himayati Goth, Bhains Colony, Karachi with his wife and other family members and is running his own. business. His nephew Soomar alias Dadha son of Kala Khan aged about 25-26 years is also residing with him. His nephew is serving Karachi Export Processing Zone at Z and M Factory. On 9-2-2008, his nephew, as usual went for his duty at 7-00 p.m. He was present in his office Bhains Colony. His cousin Rustam informed him through telephone that his nephew Soomar had received bullet injury at Export Processing Zone and lying injured condition at Bahins Colony Memon Hospital. On this information, he went to the Memon Hospital, where she saw the dead body of his nephew, who received a bullet injury on his right eye. The dead body of his nephew was taken by him and other relative for post-mortem at Jinnah Hospital Karachi. After the post-mortem, he inquired about the injury of his nephew. He was informed by one Sajid Khan, Muhammad Imtiaz, Mushtaq Ahmed that they were coming in their motorcycle from the company after closing of factory along with Soomar alias Dadha. When they reached at 0705 hours, near Jamila Masjid, Suleman and Rashid were going on foot in front of them, as soon as they crossed them, Suleman called them loudly, on which Soomar stopped the motorcycle and saw towards backside Suleman made fire upon the Soomar with his pistol, which hit near right side of his eye, who sustained injury and fell down. Subsequently, he succumbed to his injury. Suleman and Rashid made their escape good from the scene of offence. Thereafter, he registered the case against the above named persons. I have heard Mr. Shamsul Hadi learned counsel for the applicant/accused, Mr. Saleem Akhtar learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh as well as Ms. Afsheen Aman learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused argued that in the F.I.R. the applicant/accused has been alleged to be present at the place of occurrence and there is no accusation against him and mere presence at the place of incident does not constitute any 'offence. Nothing incriminating articles have been recovered from the possession of the present accused/applicant. He further contended that the star witnesses, namely Sajid Khan, Muhammad Imtiaz and Mushtaq have neither implicated the present accused in their 161, Cr.P.C. statements nor in the 164, Cr.P.C. statements, which clearly shows that the present applicant/ accused is totally innocent. The learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh did not oppose the bail application, whereas learned State Counsel stated that there is common intention as presence of the applicant/accused at the place of wardat is not disputed. According to the F.I.R. the main accused Suleman Khan has been accused for firing on the deceased on his eyes and that only one injury caused his death, whereas, the fire-arm is recovered from the main accused Suleman Khan and star witnesses/eyewitnesses namely Sajid Khan, Muhammad Imtiaz and Mushtaq all implicated the main accused Suleman in their 161, Cr.P.C. statement and in 164, Cr.P.C. statement. Admittedly, the complainant, who lodged the report on the information, is not eye-witnesses of the incident. Admittedly, the above named witnesses have not alleged the present applicant/accused for firing or armed with T.T. pistol. They only stated that he was present with main accused. According to the counsel for the applicant the Investigating Officer has mentioned in the challan that there is no evidence against the present applicant/accused except that he has been challaned due to his presence treating the common intention. There are number of decision that common intention always borne out from the actions. Moreover, the applicant/accused is not alleged for any offence and there is no mens rea against him so far with the prosecution, as such, the case of applicant/accused is of further inquiry and he is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac only) with P.R. bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Announced in open Court. M.B.A./M-86/K Bail granted.