2008 P Cr (PLP)
GHAZI SARFRAZ — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHAZI SARFRAZ — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 P Cr (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 2008 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: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (GHAZI SARFRAZ — 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.397
Conduct of the Investigating Officer in getting accused identified by the complainant at his house, instead of arranging the test identification parade in presence of a Magistrate, was highly objectionable and militated against fairness of the investigation and reasonableness of the ground put forward for believing accused guilty of the offence
Accused who, in circumstances, was entitled to bail, was released on bail.
Judgment & Decree
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned State counsel. The latter has opposed bail. According to the prosecution on 15-9-2007 at 0315 hours, four robbers, not previously known to complainant Mubin-ur-Rehman, trespassed into his House bearing No.300, Sector S/B, Surjani Town, Karachi and committed robbery of gold ornaments, cash and prize bonds of Rs.25,000 and five mobile-phone sets. On offering resistance, they injured complainant Mubin-ur-Rehman in his both hands and head with an iron rod and tied his son Junaid Ali. The Investigating Officer arrested the applicant on 4-10-2007 and took him to the house of the complainant where the latter identified him to be one of the robbers. Nothing from the robbed property is shown to have been recovered from him. The conduct of the Investigating Officer in getting the applicant identified by the complainant at his house instead of arranging the test identification parade in presence of a Magistrate is highly objectionable and militates against fairness of the investigation and reasonableness of the ground put forward for believing the applicant guilty of the offence. In view of the above overall facts and circumstances of the case the applicant is entitled to bail and he is directed to be released on bail on giving one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the trial Court. H.B.T./G-34/K Bail granted.