2012 PLP 151 (YLR)
MEVO RIND — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 151 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | MEVO RIND — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 151 (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 2012 PLP 151 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 151 (YLR) (MEVO RIND — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (LXV of 1860), Ss.395, 435 & 504
Dacoity, mischief by fire or explosive substance, intentional insult
F.I.R. in the case was lodged after more than one month and twenty days
Such delay did not reflect that after the incident complainant approached the concerned Police Station and Police refused to register his case
Perusal of mashirnama of wardat had revealed that chaff had been taken away, whereas some chaff was set on fire
F.I.R. alleged that after loading the chaff in the tractor trolly the remaining chaff was set on fire by accused party, but it was a mystery as to how the ash of such burnt chaff was found at the place of occurrence, even after more than 50 days which could have disappeared with the passage of time
Section 395, P.P.C. provided punishment with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 4 years nor more than 10 years, whereas Ss.435 & 504, P.P.C., did not carry punishment beyond 7 years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Accused could be granted bail while considering the lesser sentence as provided in S.395, P.P.C.
F.I.R. having been registered with inordinate delay without furnishing any explanation and during investigation no incriminating articles had been recovered from the accused, he had succeeded to make out a case for bail as no reasonable ground was to believe that accused had committed the offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years
Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. 2006 YLR 3167 rel Fazal Qadir Memon for Applicant Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G. for the State
Judgment & Decree
AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, J.
Applicant Mevo Rind along with others has been booked in Crime No.24 of 2011 of P.S. Shandadpur for offence under sections 395, 435 and 504, P.P.C. and through instant application, he seeks post arrest bail as his bail plea has been turned down by the trial Court vide order dated 18-3-2011 According to prosecution case, on 30-11-2010, applicant along with co-accused Chanesar, Moharram, Gul Hassan, Waloo, Raboo, Malook, Mithal and Asif came on the lands of Wahid Bux where his hari Sarang was present. Out of them applicant Mevo was armed with hatchet while rest of the accused were armed with pistols, hatchets and guns. It is alleged that on gun point accused loaded 100 Monds Chaff in a tractor trolley while the remaining Chaff lying at the land was set on fire. The F.I.R. was registered on 20-1-2011. The motive behind this occurrence is dispute over the piece of land between the parties. Per learned counsel, applicant is innocent and has no nexus with the alleged offence; neither such incident has ever taken place nor the present applicant participated in the said occurrence; though the alleged incident taken place on 30-11-2010 but the F.I.R. has been registered on 20-1-2011 with the delay of 50 days; applicant along with his son Raboo and other accused who are his close relatives; has been implicated in this false case. He lastly contended that though the F.I.R. was registered under section 17(3), EHO, 435 P.P.C., however the challan has been submitted under sections 395, 435 and 504 P.P.C. as during the course of investigation police could not collect any material connecting the present applicant with the commission of offence. Conversely, Syed Meeral Shah learned D.P.-G. for the State opposed the bail application on the ground that name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R. and he along with co-accused participated in the alleged incident. From the material available on record, it appears that alleged incident has taken place on 30-11-2010 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 20-1-2011 under the orders of Additional Sessions Judge but it does not reflect that after incident complainant approached the concerned Police Station and police refused to register his case. Even from the contents of F.I.R. it reveals that after occurrence, complainant apprised the facts to his landlord Wahid Bux and then moved an application before the concerned Sessions Judge for registration of F.I.R. A perusal of mashirnama of wardat reveals that some Chaff had been taken away whereas some Chaff was set on fire. It is very strange and does not attract to prudent mind that how, after such long time, the police found the ash of Chaff which was set on fire or came to the conclusion that some Chaff was taken away. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that after loading the Chaff in the tractor trolley the remaining Chaff was set on fire by the accused party but it is a mystery that how the ash of such burnt Chaff was found at the place of occurrence even after more than 50 days which could be disappeared with the passage of time. Applicant has been challaned under sections 395, 435 and 504, P.P.C. Section 395, P.P.C. provides punishment with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 4 years' nor more than 10 years whereas sections 435 and 504, P.P.C. do not carry punishment beyond 7 years and do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Since section 395, P.P.C. provides alternate sentence and in Shahmoro's case 2006 YLR 3167 while considering the lesser sentence as provided in section 395, P.P.C. this Court granted bail to the accused do somewhat similar circumstances. Since the F.I.R. in above case has been registered with inordinate delay without furnishing any explanation and during investigation, no incriminating article has been recovered from the present applicant. In view of above and the dictum laid down in Shahmoro's case (Supra) I am of the considered view that applicant has succeeded to make out a case for bail as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed the offence punishment with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years. Consequently, the application is granted. Let the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (One lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court H.B.T./M-170/K Bail granted.