2007 PLP 1794 (MLD)
SAAD — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1794 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAAD — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1794 (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 1794 (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 1794 (MLD) (SAAD — 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 (XLV of 1860), Ss.378 & 382
Allegation against accused was that he snatched mobile phone from complainant which he was holding in his hand and ran away
Accused was not alleged to be armed and no recovery of arm had been shown against him
Case of accused did not fall under Section 382, P.P.C., which had been registered against him, but it was a case of an ordinary theft which attracted S.378, P.P.C. for which maximum punishment was three years
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.
This bail application had been filed against the order of the .2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) in Sessions Case No.833 of 2006, dated 23-6-2006, whereby bail application was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the F.I.R. are that the applicant snatched a mobile phone of the complainant which he was holding in his hand and ran away and was caught red-handed by the applicant with the help of two A.S.-Is., who were present on the occasion. However, there is no allegation that he was armed or that he had made some arrangement for his escape.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case does not fall under section 382, P.P.C. under which section the F.I.R. has been registered as it has not been alleged that the applicant had made preparation for causing death or hurt or tear of death during commission of the theft. The learned counsel submitted that it was an ordinary theft which would fall under section 378, P.P.C. for which maximum punishment provided is three years.
4. The learned State Counsel opposed this bail application as according to him mobile snatching has become a common act in the city and a number of persons have been murdered during such mobile snatching. However, in this case there is no allegation of applicant being armed and no recovery of arms has been shown.
5. I am, therefore, of the view that the applicant is entitled to bail. I would, therefore, admit the applicant to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and P.R. bound in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. The applicant is directed to extend his full cooperation in proceedings of the case failing which concession of bail granted to him may be withdrawn. H.B.T./S-61/K Bail granted.