2004 PLP 1572 (YLR)
RAMZAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1572 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Roshan Essani, J |
| Parties | RAMZAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 189R)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1572 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 189R)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1572 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Roshan Essani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1572 (YLR) (RAMZAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392/412‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Neither any F.I.R. was registered with regard to alleged robbery of motorcycle nor any person appeared before police and claimed motorcycle to be stolen property, even the charge sheet was silent in that context‑‑‑Name of alleged owner of motorcycle did not transpire in the charge‑sheet‑‑‑Case had been sent up for trial and accused was no more required for the purpose of investigation‑‑‑Case required further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Tariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 ref. Madad Ali Shah for Applicant. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The facts leading to present application for bail are that applicant/accused Ramzan is facing trial before the Sessions Judge, Sanghar under sections 412 and 392, P.P.C. The case arose out of F.I.R. No.52 of 2001 of Police Station, Perumal. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. are reproduced hereinbelow in extenso. That I am posted at P. P. Tando Mitha Khan, I alongwith my subordinate staff C/368, Qurban Ali and C/567, Shahmir Khan vide Entry No.II at about 2050 hours left P.P. for patrolling and Naka Bandi. While patrolling from various places, at about 2215 hours we took Khipro Road, when we reached near Mehar Bhit Bhai Stop we held Naka Bandi. During Naka Bandi at 2215 hours we saw one motorcycle coming from Khipro side. When motorcycle reached near us, the persons on motorcycle on seeing us in police uniforms, tried to turn the motorcycle back, we gave hackals to them and went nearer to them. The motorcycle cold not be reversed and it slipped. Three persons came down from the motorcycle. They left the motorcycle and ran away, we identified them on search light to be Ghulam Mustafa alias Tido Machi, Malook Rajar and Ramzan Machhi. They are criminals and were armed with weapons. We tried our best with the help of staff to apprehend them but they taking advantage of darkness and jungle ran away, and were not apprehended. Then we took the motorcycle in our possession and checked it. It was CD‑70 Model 1998 of Green Colour Engine No.1670567 and Chassis No.176114 without number plate. We took the motorcycle left by accused in our possession under mashirnama of recovery prepared before mashirs C/Qurban Ali and C/Shahmir Khan in the light of search light and brought the secured motorcycle at police post. Hence this F.I.R. against the above said culprits who robbed the above said motorcycle from Muhammad Bux Gaho and have kept the robbed motorcycle in their possession. The above named accused Ghulam Mustafa alias Tido Machhi, Malook Rajar and Ramzan Machhi have robbed motorcycle from Muhammad Bux Gaho and, retained the stolen property with them and thereby they have committed offence under sections 412 and 392, P P.C., therefore, I being complainant on behalf of State lodge this report. Detail of recovered motorcycle is as under:‑‑ "One motorcycle without number, CD‑70, Mode‑1998, Green Colour, Engine No.1670567 and Chassis No.176114 valued Rs.50,000" The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but his bail plea was dismissed by impugned order dated 18‑1‑2003. I have heard Mr. Madad Ali Shah learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant/accused and Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.A.‑G. for the State. The latter conceded to the grant of bail. The perusal of material placed on record shows that neither any F.I.R. was registered with regard to alleged robbery of motorcycle to be stolen property. Even charge‑sheet is silent in this context. The name of the alleged owner of motorcycle does not transpire in charge‑sheet. Moreover the case has been sent up and the applicant/accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Keeping in view the dicta of Apex Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 I am of the considered view that the case requires further inquiry as contemplated under section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the applicant/accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. One Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./R‑6/K Bail granted.