2007 PLP 612 (MLD)
TAJ MUHAMMAD and 4 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 612 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TAJ MUHAMMAD and 4 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 612 (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 2007 PLP 612 (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: 2007 PLP 612 (MLD) (TAJ MUHAMMAD and 4 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 114, 147, 148 & 504
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
F.I.R. showed that specific role of causing injuries had been assigned to co-accused--No role had been attributed to accused
Besides other co-accused were placed in Column-II of the challan by the police
Punishment for the alleged offence, did not fall within. the prohibition contained in S.497, Cr.P.C.
Case had been challaned and was being proceeded by Magistrate
State counsel had no objection against confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused
Parties were infested by the previous enmity as evident from the contents of F.I.R.
Malicious prosecution could not be ruled out, in circumstances
Interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.
It is contended that in the F.I.R. the specific role of causing injuries has been assigned to co-accused Aslam and Ghulam Mustafa. No role has been attributed to the present applicants. Besides the applicants Nos. 1 to 4 were placed in column-II of the challan by the police. The punishment for the A alleged offence does not fall within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. The case has been challaned and is being proceeded by the Magistrate. Learned State counsel has outrightly stated no objection to the confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants. Indeed the points raised hereinabove are uncontrovertible. The parties are infested by the previous enmity as evident from the contents of F.I.R. As such, malicious prosecution could not be ruled out. In the circumstances, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. H.B.T./T-2/K Bail confirmed.