2009 PLP 1269 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SALMAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1269 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALMAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1269 (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 1269 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1269 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SALMAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Foreigners Act (XXXI 1946), Ss. 3(2) (a) (b), 13/14
Foreigners Order, 1951, S.5
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468, 471 & 109
Accused had stated that the only piece of evidence available against him was the police statement of co-accused which could not be relied upon by the prosecution for convicting him and that co-accused had nominated accused due to enmity
Interim bail before arrest was granted to accused, in circumstances. Saathi M. Ishauq and S. Samiullah Shah for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.--Granted.
2. Per learned Counsel, he had approached for bail before arrest, before learned Trial Court which has, per impugned order, issued notice and hence the applicant has no option but to apply before this Court for the same relief. In these circumstances, office objection is overruled.
3. Granted subject to all just exception.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant says that the only piece of evidence available against the applicant/accused is the police statement of co-accused which cannot be relied upon by the Prosecution for convicting the applicant/accused. Secondly per learned counsel, co-Accused have nominated the applicant/accused due to enmity etc. He, therefore, prays that interim bail before arrest may be accorded to the applicant/accused particularly since when he approached the learned Trial Court, notice was issued on his bail application only.
5. I have heard learned counsel and gone through the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances, interim bail before arrest is granted to the applicant/accused subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this court. Issue notice to the DAG. To come up for confirmation or otherwise on 20-6-2006. H.B.T./M-10/K Bail granted.