P L D 1997 Quetta 31 (PLP)
YAR MUHAMMAD — Applicant/Accused Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1997 Quetta 31 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | YAR MUHAMMAD — Applicant/Accused Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1997 Quetta 31 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1997 Quetta 31 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1997 Quetta 31 (PLP) (YAR MUHAMMAD — Applicant/Accused Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-A
Court while granting bail has to satisfy itself whether reasonable ground exists against accused for believing that he is connected with offence alleged against him--Without such finding case cannot be termed as fit for further inquiry.
S. 497
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-A
Bail-- Accused according to the material available with the-prosecution had exclusive control over the raided house
Raid having been conducted in the presence of Magistrate who, prima facie, could not be deemed to be an interested person, prosecution accusation could not be straightaway rejected and the testimony of witnesses could not be discredited outright or excluded from consideration merely because they were police officials
Accused had been expressly mentioned in the Murasila immediately recorded at the spot and the press report, therefore, by itself could not have any legal impact of disproving material on record
Reasonable grounds connecting the accused with the commission of the offence, thus, existed and the contentions suggesting further inquiry were not helpful to him
Bail was declined to accused in circumstances.
S. 103
Search in presence of witnesses
Factors to be kept in view in case of non-compliance, viz., (i) causes regarding non-association of local inhabitants, (ii) genuineness of action for public interest or general benefits, (iii) non-attribution of mala fides against police officials or other witnesses of search, (iv) fear of leakage of information or probability of destroying evidence if search is delayed and (v) urgency of matter or State interest.
S. 497/498
Press clippings
Press clippings though not admissible without formal proof, yet can be referred to while tentatively examining various factors connected with the commission of offence.--[Evidence].
Judgment & Decree
S. 497
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-A
Bail-- Accused according to the material available with the-prosecution had exclusive control over the raided house
Raid having been conducted in the presence of Magistrate who, prima facie, could not be deemed to be an interested person, prosecution accusation could not be straightaway rejected and the testimony of witnesses could not be discredited outright or excluded from consideration merely because they were police officials
Accused had been expressly mentioned in the Murasila immediately recorded at the spot and the press report, therefore, by itself could not have any legal impact of disproving material on record
Reasonable grounds connecting the accused with the commission of the offence, thus, existed and the contentions suggesting further inquiry were not helpful to him
Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Gulshan v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 101; Miss Shahida Parveen v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 179; Bashir Ahmad and others v. The State 1996 MLD 418; Dr. Shah v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1359; Muhammad Akbar v. The State 1996 MLD 1311; Akhtar Hussain v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1816; Sajjad Hussain v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1437; Altaf Hussain v. The State 1996 SCMR 167; Mushtaq Ahmad v. The State PLD 1996 SC 574; Muhammad Hussain v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 4,88; Siddique v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1178; Zulfiqar Ali Shah v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1654; Shahzad v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 978; Muhammad Khan v. Dost Muhammad PLD 1975 SC 607; Rehman v. The State 1976 SCMR 72; Mumtazuddin v. The State PLD 1978 SC 114; Mumtaz Ahmad v. The State PLD 1981 SC 635; Muhammad Shah v. The State PLD 1984 SC 278; Abdul Hamid v. The State PLD 1985 FSC 410; Safdar Abbas and 2 others v. The State PLD 1987 SC 46;Taslim Khan v. The State PLD 1990 SC 1088; Zardar v. The State 1991 SCMR 458; Khudai Rahim v. The State 1991 SCMR 461; Mirza Shah v. The State PLD 1992 SC 1475; Zakir Hussain v. The State 1995 SCMR 1793; Najibul v. Saadat Khan 1989 SCMR 99 and 1989 SCMR 899 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 103
Search in presence of witnesses
Factors to be kept in view in case of non-compliance, viz., (i) causes regarding non-association of local inhabitants, (ii) genuineness of action for public interest or general benefits, (iii) non-attribution of mala fides against police officials or other witnesses of search, (iv) fear of leakage of information or probability of destroying evidence if search is delayed and (v) urgency of matter or State interest. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 497/498
Press clippings
Press clippings though not admissible without formal proof, yet can be referred to while tentatively examining various factors connected with the commission of offence.--[Evidence]. Abdul Aziz Khan Khilji for Applicant. Ejaz Yousuf, Addl. A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 5th September, 1996.