1999 PLP 1013 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD NADEEM KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1013 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NADEEM KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1013 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1013 (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: 1999 PLP 1013 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD NADEEM KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 382/34
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17 (3)
Despite the recovery of incriminating articles having been effected at the instance of accused from a building situated in a thickly populated area, police did not get any independent Mashir to witness the same
Neither the accused was named in the F.I.R. nor any identification parade was held in the case
Case against accused, as such, was one of further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
Mumtaz Ali Khan Deshmukh for Applicant. Choudhry Muhammad Iqbal for the State. This bail application has been filed on behalf of Muhammad Nadeem Khan who is facing trial under sections 382/34, P.P.C. and 20 Enforcement of Hudood converted in challan as 17(3) Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance. The facts of the case are that complainant was present in his house alongwith his mother, brothers and sister on 22-4-1996 when four young boys aged about 17 and 18 years armed with fire-arms entered into his house and gathered all of them and asked for keys of the Almirah. The keys were handed over to them and they took a sum of Rs.11,000, 1500 U.S. Dollars, 14 golden bangles, 4 ear rings 3 chains golden, locket, three finger golden one silver set etc. and fled away. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the name of the accused/applicant was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and no identification parade has been held in this case. The learned counsel for the applicant further stated that in this case articles were recovered from a flat of a building situated in Kharadar and the Mashirs were police officials. The learned counsel for the State argued that the stolen articles have been recovered from the applicant/accused, as such he opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In this case the articles were allegedly recovered, from the accused from a flat in the building which is situated in Kharadar which is a thickly populated area and it is very strange that the police could not get any independent Mashir of the recovery. The name of the accused was also not mentioned in the F.I.R. and no identification parade has been held, as such the case of the accused/applicant is one of further enquiry. In view of above, I grant this application and enlarge the accused/applicant on bail on his furnishing one solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M-202/K Bail granted.