2007 PLP 853 (YLR)
AKHTAR HUSSAIN alias AKHTAR ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 853 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munib Ahmed Khan, J |
| Parties | AKHTAR HUSSAIN alias AKHTAR ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 853 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 853 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Munib Ahmed Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 853 (YLR) (AKHTAR HUSSAIN alias AKHTAR ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-F(i), (vi), H(ii), 447, 504, 147, 148 & 149
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
State counsel had no objection to the confirmation of bail of accused on the ground that case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. and challan had already been submitted and investigation or the proceedings, would not be affected in any way, if accused would remain on bail
In view of nature of injury and allegations in respect of civil dispute and rival claims, interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed on the same terms. Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicant. Riazuddin Siddiqui for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.--Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the case has been made up only due to tension between the families and the complainant is also related to the' applicant being his cousin. He has further submitted that the nature of the injury, which has been alleged by the complainant shows that although serious harm could be caused under the alleged circumstances but only minor injuries have been attributed and that injury on the elbow is not because of the hatchet and may be because of the fall of the complainant on the ground. He has further submitted that complainant has involved not only the applicant but his other close relatives and this has been done only to restrain the applicant and his relatives from utilizing their plot. He has also pointed out that the applicant was on duty on the day of incident and certificate can be submitted to that extent. The learned State Counsel has no objection to the confirmation of the bail on the ground that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the challan has already been submitted, therefore, investigation or the proceedings will not be affected in any way if the applicant remains on bail. In the circumstances, keeping in view the nature of injury and the allegations in respect to civil dispute and rival claims, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant/accused on 22-5-2006 is confirmed in the same terms. Bail application stands disposed of. H.B.T./A-8/K Bail confirmed.