2022 PLP 1367 (MLD)
ILTAF AHMAD — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 PLP 1367 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Sukkur Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ILTAF AHMAD — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 1367 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 1367 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Sukkur Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 1367 (MLD) (ILTAF AHMAD — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 3. I have heard the valued submissions of the learned advocate for applicant/accused and Additional Prosecutor General. I have also scanned the available record with their able assistance provided during the course of arguments. From whatever articulated or placed before me, I have observed as under:
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 399, 402, 324 & 353
Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.25
Making preparation for dacoity, assembling for purpose of committing dacoity, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty
Possession and use of firearms to commit crime
Un-natural conduct
Scope
Allegation against accused was that he along with his associates was present on a road in order to commit some offence which was intimated to raiding police party by spy informer
Police party reached at the reporting place where encounter took place and during encounter the accused received injuries while co-accused succeeded to run away
Accused was arrested in injured condition along with pistol for which he disclosed that the same was unlicensed, therefore, the companion case under S.25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 was also registered
Held; allegedly the accused along with co-accused was available at some place in order to prepare for some offence but no overt act towards the offence was done prior to reaching of the police party
Accused persons had allegedly opened fire upon police party which was retaliated but none from the police party had received injuries
First Information Report of the main case indicated that after the arrest of accused he had disclosed that he had received injuries from his own associate
Reportedly police party had reached at the place of incident in a vehicle but despite of showers of bullets, the police vehicle remained harmless
Accused had sustained injuries above his knees which spoke volumes about the action taken by the police
Case of accused required further probe, as such, he was entitled for bail in both cases
Applications for grant of bail were allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.
The applicant seeks post-arrest bail in criminal bail application No. S-536 of 2020 in a case registered against him at Police Station Sarhad pertaining to crime No.74/2020 under Sections 399, 402, 324, 353, P.P.C. and in Criminal Bail Application No.S-568 of 2020 initiated upon Crime No. 75/2020 of same Police Station under Section 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, therefore it will be appropriate that both bail applications be decided with one and same order.
2. The allegations against the applicant is that the applicant along with his associates were available at Nao road in order to commit some offence which was intimated to raiding police party by spy informer. The police party reached at the reporting place where encounter took place and during encounter the applicant received injuries while co-accused succeeded to runaway. The applicant was arrested in injured condition along with pistol for which he disclosed that the same was unlicensed, therefore, the companion case under Section 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 was also registered.
3. I have heard the valued submissions of the learned advocate for applicant/accused and Additional Prosecutor General. I have also scanned the available record with their able assistance provided during the course of arguments. From whatever articulated or placed before me, I have observed as under: i) Allegedly the applicant along with co-accused were available at same place in order to prepare for some offence but no overt act towards said offence was done prior to reaching the police party. ii) Allegedly, accused persons opened fires upon police party first which was retaliated but none from the police party received injuries. iii) The FIR of the main case indicates that after arrest of the applicant, he disclosed that he had received injuries from his own associate. iv) Reportedly police party reached at the place of incident in a vehicle but inspite of showers of bullets of accused persons the police vehicle was also remained harmless. v) The injuries sustained to the injured is said to be caused above the knees which also speaks volume about the action taken by the police. In the existing position of affairs, the case of applicant/accused Iltaf Ahmed son of Muhammad Murad Bharo needs further probe, as such applicant is entitled for bail in both the aforementioned bail applications hence he was admitted to bail through short order dated 08.10.2020 subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) in each abovementioned bail applications to the entire satisfaction of the trial Court. Office is directed to place a signed copy of this order in the captioned connected bail application. The above are the reasons for short order mentioned above. SA/I-34/Sindh Bail granted.