PCRLJ 2011

2011 P Cr (PLP)

JEHANGEER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2010-November-12
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2011 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties JEHANGEER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 P Cr (PLP)?

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: 2011 P Cr (PLP) (JEHANGEER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.496-A/376

Enticing a woman and rape

Bail, grant of-Delay of five months in lodging of F.I.R. and opinion of Medical Officer was in negative

Accused was in jail since about three years and trial had not concluded

Expeditious trial of the case was a right of accused; and in case such right was denied, accused would be entitled to be considered for concession of bail

Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

BHAJANDAS TEJWANI, J.

The bail plea is being pressed on the ground that there is delay of five months in lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been properly explained and there is no medical evidence available on the record. The applicant is in jail since three years and the trial has not concluded and that including the complainant five prosecution witnesses have been examined from whom only the complainant Dotal has supported the case to the extent of hearsay evidence from the victim, while other prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned A.P.-G. for the State concedes to the above factual position but opposes for the grant of bail on the ground that the applicant is charged with heinous offence. Admittedly there is delay of five months in lodging of the F.I.R. and opinion of Medical Officer is in negative. The applicant is in jail since about three years and trial has not been concluded. The expeditious trial of the case is a right of accused and in case such right is denied the accused will be entitled to be considered for concession of bail. Accordingly, this bail plea is accepted. The applicant shall be released subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 200,000 (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand) and P.R: Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./J-15/K Bail granted.