2008 PLP 452 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ZAHID HALARI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 452 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAHID HALARI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 452 (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 2008 PLP 452 (MLD)?
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 PLP 452 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ZAHID HALARI — 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)
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)-Bail, grant of
Accused was a student and minor at the time of incident--,Complainant had filed affidavit exonerating the accused
Delay of three days in lodging F.I.R. had not been explained
Memo. of arrest showed that accused had been arrested after being identified in the Police Station
Case of accused needing further inquiry, he was granted bail.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.
Mr. Khawaja Naveed submits that the accused was minor at the time of incident as his date of birth is 16-12-1990. He further submits that the applicant is a student and that no recovery has been effected from him. He further submits that an affidavit has been filed by the complainant exonerating the applicant. Mr. Jawaid Haider Kazmi submits that the story in the F.I.R. has been concocted. The applicant was allegedly arrested in an F.I.R. under section 13-D of Arms Ordinance. He has submitted that according to the Memo. of Arrest the applicant has been arrested after being identified in the Police Station. The learned counsel for applicants submit that the applicants remained in illegal custody from 12-3-2007 to 15-3-2007 as during that period no direction was sought. They have referred to PLD 1999 Pesh. 39 stating that if custody is found illegal then accused has to be released. They have also relied upon 1992 PCr.LJ 357; 1987 PCr.LJ 2423; 1997 MLD 2101 on the same point. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged incident is, dated 4th March, 2007 but F.I.R. has been lodged on 7th March, 2007 i.e. after three days while delay has not been explained and according to the police delay has been caused by the complainant himself. They have further argued that the F.I.R. is almost blank and even mobile numbers have not been mentioned in it, which was must for identification. They have further relied on 1998 PCr.LJ 1236 on identification parade 1998 PCr.LJ 1693, 1972 PCr.LJ 310, 1987 MLD 1708; 2004, PCr.LJ
458. Learned counsel of the State submits that the accused were arrested and were involved in the crime. He further submits that accused were arrested on the pointation of the complainant but he has not disputed the documents i.e. memo. of arrest of applicants and their identification in the Police Station. After perusal of the F.I.R. it seems that delay in the F.I.R. as well as absence of mobile phone numbers in the F.I.R. and arrest after identification of the accused persons in the Police Station and thereafter exoneration of one of the accused by the complainant needs further; investigation in the matter. Therefore, the applicants are granted bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each with P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-183/K Bail granted.