2005 PLP 184 (YLR)
TAREEN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 184 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Soomro and Zahid Kurban Alvi, JJ |
| Parties | TAREEN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 184 (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 2005 PLP 184 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Soomro and Zahid Kurban Alvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 184 (YLR) (TAREEN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379, 380 & 395---Bail, grant of-- Further inquiry---Incident seemed to have taken place at night tine---Accused was put to identification test after ten days of his arrest---Accused was not nominated in F.I.R. nor by prosecution witnesses in their statements made under S.161, Cr. P. C. -- Statement recorded about 6/7 days after incident had made case of accused of further inquiry---No recovery had been effected from possession of accused-- Assistant Advocate-General had also not opposed grant of bail to accused-- Accused was granted bail in circumstances.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379, 380 & 395
Bail, grant of-- Further inquiry
Incident seemed to have taken place at night tine
Accused was put to identification test after ten days of his arrest
Accused was not nominated in F.I.R. nor by prosecution witnesses in their statements made under S.161, Cr. P. C. -- Statement recorded about 6/7 days after incident had made case of accused of further inquiry
No recovery had been effected from possession of accused-- Assistant Advocate-General had also not opposed grant of bail to accused-- Accused was granted bail in circumstances. Jai Jai Vishno Mange Ram for Applicant. Ali Azher Tunio, Assistant A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Jai Jai Vishno Mange Ram for Applicant. Ali Azher Tunio, Assistant A.-G. for the State. The applicant is facing trial in Crime No.66 of 2000 Police Station Dakhan District Shikarpur, which was recorded on 6-10-2000 at the instance of complainant Naik Muhammad. According to him six unknown persons were stealing away his buffaloe from his house, on which, he raised cries and challenged the accused persons. In the meanwhile gunplay took place in between the accused and the complainant party resultantly two persons from the side of accused lost their lives while one Nusrat Hussain and a buffaloe received injuries. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been implicated in this case on the basis of 164, Cr.P.C. statements which were recorded on 31-10-2000 while the F.I.R. was registered on 6-10-2000. He submits that in fact neither name of applicant appears in the F.I.R. nor he has been named in 161, Cr.P.C. statements of the P. Ws recorded after 6/7 days of the incident. He further submits that the incident has taken place in the night time and false implication of the applicant in such a manner cannot be ruled out. On the other hand Mr. Ali Azher Tunio, learned Assistant A-G for the State has very candidly raised no objection for the grant of bail to the applicant. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Assistant A.-G for the State. Admittedly, the incident seems to have taken place at night time. The applicant was arrested on 23-10-2000 and after ten days of his arrest on 30-10-2000 he was put to identification test. He has not been nominated in F.I.R. nor by the P.Ws in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. statements which was recorded about 6/7 days after the incident A which makes the case of applicant of further inquiry. Also, no recovery has been effected from his possession. The learned Assistant A.-G has also not opposed the grant of bail. In the circumstances, applicant Tareen is granted bail subject to furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs.1,50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./T-17/K Bail granted.