YLR 2009

2009 PLP 306 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD IMRAN alias UMER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Bail Application No. 1130 and M.A. No. 5632 of 2007, decided on 5th May, 2008.
Honorable Judges
Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP 306 (YLR)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, J
Parties MUHAMMAD IMRAN alias UMER — 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 2009 PLP 306 (YLR)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 306 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 306 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD IMRAN alias UMER — 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(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 396/34

Bail

Allegation levelled against the accused was of committing murder during robbery

Names of some eye-witnesses had not been given in the list of prosecution witnesses--Identification parade was held after six days of arrest of the accused, which was also not in accordance with law, coupled with the fact that the accused had been incorrectly named in the F.I.R

Arrest and identification of the accused on the basis of statement of co-accused at this stage needed further inquiry

Bail was allowed in circumstances. 1998 PCr.LJ 1613 and 2006 YLR 548 ref. Sarfraz Khan Tanoli and Tanveer- ul-Islam Tanoli for Applicant. Ms. Afsheen Aman, A.A.-G. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.

Granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applicant Imran alias Umer son of Muhammad Iqbal, who has been implicated in Crime No.2 of 2007, under section 396/34, P.P.C. of Police Station Zaman Town, has moved this bail application. Case of prosecution is that on 8-1-2007 three persons duly armed entered to the house of complainant. During commission of offence beside committing robbery of the articles mentioned in F.I.R. they also caused fire-arm injuries to complainant's brother Muhammad Sharif, who while taking to hospital died in the way. It is stated by complainant that on 8-1-2007 being in state of sorrow due to death of his younger brother the family members were not in a position to give details of the incident, however, on the next day his mother informed him and on the basis of that information he has lodged the F.I.R. Learned counsel for applicant referring the contents of F.I.R. has argued that although name of complainant's mother has been nominated in the list of witnesses but other two persons i.e., her daughter and daughter-in-law who were also present at the time of incident have not been nominated as witnesses. Identification parade through his mother on 6-2-2007 after six days of arrest of the applicant is also not in accordance to law. He objected to the holding of identification parade that neither dummies were in sufficient numbers nor identification of each culprit was held separately. They were placed in same row at one time. To support his arguments learned counsel has referred 1998 PCr.LJ 1613 wherein joint identification parade by mixing the culprit with insufficient numbers of dummies was held to be unreliable particularly when the accused persons were in custody of police for more than three days. Whereas in the present case identification parade was held after about six days. Next ground urged by him that applicant has been` falsely implicated, personating him with incorrect name. To support his argument he has placed his National Identity Card wherein his name has been shown as Umar Ali son of Muhammad Ashraf. It is argued that on the basis of statement of co-accused persons he has been arrested in the matter. In fact neither his name is Muhammad Imran nor his parentage is Muhammad Iqbal. He has been wrongly identified by co-accused persons. Reliance his been placed on 2006 YLR

548. Conversely learned State counsel has opposed to the grant of this bail application and stated that even if joint identification held, is considered to be improper but still then the mother of applicant who is eye-witness of the incident has clearly identified this applicant as one of the culprits and has also specified role played by him while committing the offence. It is further contended that in the incident one person had died, empties were recovered from the place of incident, but at present record is silent that from whose possession stolen articles were recovered and who is responsible to cause death of complainant's brother. Record further reveals that co-accused persons were in custody of Police Station Sher Shah in F.I.R. Nos.14 and 15 of 2007 on 27-1-2007 and during interrogation they had been taken up in the matter. From the above discussion it reveals that there are certain discrepancies happened during the investigation of the case, names of the eye-witnesses have not been given in the list of prosecution witnesses, identification parade held after six days of arrest of applicant was also not in accordance with law, coupled with the fact that it is alleged by applicant that he has been wrongly implicated in the matter as his name in fact is Umer Ali son of Muhammad Ashraf and not Muhammad Imran son of Muhammad Iqbal. Arrest and identification of this applicant on the basis of the statement of co-accused persons at this stage need further enquiry. Hence being a case of further enquiry, applicant is allowed to be released on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. A.M.R./M-154/K Bail allowed.