1997SCMR412 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997SCMR412 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Saleem Akhtar |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997SCMR412 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997SCMR412 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Saleem Akhtar.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997SCMR412 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th December, 1995
- S. Zawwar Hussain Jafri, Assistant Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State,
- 3. Mr. S. Zawwar Hussain Jafri, learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Sindh opposed the petitioner and contended that there were about ten criminal cases in which the petitioner was accused of having committed robbery.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑8‑1995 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Cr. Bail Application No.882/95). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.394‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused's name not appearing in F.I.R.‑‑ Identification test not held‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Involvement of accused in a number of cases of robery was not sufficient to deprive him of his liberty‑‑‑Record did not show as to why identification test of accused through eye‑witnesses was not held when his name did not appear in the F.I.R.‑‑‑Mere production by the accused of some cash before police alleged to have been robbed by him, in absence of any other evidence was not enough for his involvement in the case‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal in circumstances and accused was allowed bail accordingly. Ishaq Masih v. The State 1993 SCMR 1322 ref. S. Zawwar Hussain Jafri, Assistant Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State,
Judgment & Decree
Ishaq Masih v. The State 1993 SCMR 1322 ref. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. S. Zawwar Hussain Jafri, Assistant Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State, Date of hearing: 17th December, 1995 MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.‑‑‑Petitioner Muhammad Rafique is accused in a criminal case registered under F.I.R. No.176/84 at Police Station Frere, District Karachi South, on 26‑10‑1994 on complaint of Muhammad Iqbal owner of Delight Auto Service Station. The petitioner was arrested on 28‑1‑1995 and the case against him is pending in the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, where he moved for bail but his application was dismissed on 2‑7‑1995. The petitioner took the matter to the High Court in Criminal Bail Application No.882/95 which was dismissed on 20‑8‑1995 under a judgment against which leave to appeal is sought.
2. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that name of the petitioner does not appear in the F.I.R., where it was alleged that on 26‑10‑1994 at 5.40 p.m. four persons came by car to the Delight Auto Service Station and two persons hit complainant Muhammad Iqbal with TT pistols and robbed him of Rs.70,
500. It was further argued that identification test of the petitioner was riot held through eye‑witnesses Muhammad Iqbal and Sher Afgan and that both the Mashirs in whose presence the petitioner produced some cash were police officers and lastly that the petitioner was in custody for the last one year.
3. Mr. S. Zawwar Hussain Jafri, learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Sindh opposed the petitioner and contended that there were about ten criminal cases in which the petitioner was accused of having committed robbery.
4. Fact that the petitioner is accused in a number of cases of robbery, is not sufficient to deprive him of his liberty. It has not come on record, as to, why identification test of the petitioner through eye‑witnesses was not held when his name did not appear in the F.I.R. Mere production by the petitioner before police of some cash alleged to have been obtained by robbery, in absence of any other evidence. In this respect the observations made in the case of Ishaq Masih v. The State (1993 SCMR 1322) are relevant.
5. In the circumstances, we convert this petition into appeal' and grant bail to appellant Muhammad Rafique in the sum of Rs.50,000 with R.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑3295/S Bail granted.