2006 PLP 1342 (MLD)
BAHADUR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1342 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BAHADUR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1342 (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 2006 PLP 1342 (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: 2006 PLP 1342 (MLD) (BAHADUR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13
Surrender of Illicit Arms Act (XXI of 1991), S.7(c)
Was yet to be determined whether in circumstances and facts disclosed in F.I.R., offence would fall under West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 or under Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991
Under Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, also maximum sentence for three years' R.I. was provided
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.
It is contended that on 13-7-2001 CIA Police had raided the village of the applicant and had asked the villagers to produce their weapons. It is further contended that other F.I.Rs. Nos.70 of 2001, 73 of 2001, 74 of 2001 and 68 of 2001 of Police Station Bakrani were registered mala fidely as in the most of the cases, the weapons were produced by the licence holders. In the case of the present applicant Bahadur also, the repeater gun is shown to be licensed one which is in the name of Liaquat Ali. It is contended further that the prosecution story is false, the gun in the case was not secured by police during patrolling. The number of F.I.Rs. registered against persons of the same village falsifies the prosecution story. It is lastly contended that it is yet to be determined whether the offence would fall under S.13 of Arms Ordinance or under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991. Learned counsel for the State has not opposed the bail plea of the applicant. It is yet to be determined whether in the circumstances and the facts disclosed in the F.I.R., the offence would fall under the Ordinance of 1965 or under the Act of 1991. In any case, under the Act, 1991 also maximum sentence for three years' R.I. is provided. Bail is, therefore, granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. Criminal Bail Application No.541 of 2001 stands disposed of along with listed applications. H.B.T./B-11/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.