2006 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. RUKHSANA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. RUKHSANA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. RUKHSANA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)
Accused was earlier granted bail after arrest by the Trial Court
Accused kept on attending the Trial Court for some time, but later on she was called absent and non-bailable warrants were issued against her and notice was also issued to her surety
Subsequently accused surrendered herself before the Court of Session and her bail application was transferred to Sessions Judge at place 'D' where her application was dismissed
Accused had remained absent earlier on account of her illness and her earlier surety bond had already been forfeited
Ends of justice would meet if accused was allowed bail on her furnishing fresh surety bonds in specified amount.
Judgment & Decree
ATA-UR-REHMAN, J.
1. Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions. This application for bail before arrest has been filed by applicant Mst. Rukhsana daughter of Abdullah who is involved in Crime No.7 of 2002 under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicant was granted bail after arrest by the trial Court sometime in July, 2002. She kept on attending the trial Court till 10-11-2003. However, on 17-11-2003 she was called absent and N.B.Ws. were issued against her and also notice to her surety. Thereafter on 20-4-2004 she surrendered herself before the Court of Session Dadu with Criminal Bail Application No.788 of 2004 which was transferred to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu where her application was dismissed. Hence the present application. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.A.-G. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is resident of Larkana whereas the case is proceeding at Kotri. He further submitted that the applicant fallen sick and had no mode to intimate the Court to that effect. He further submitted that the surety submitted by her earlier has already been forfeited by the trial Court. He also added that the present applicant has already been punished enough and is ready and willing to furnish fresh surety in the enhanced amount and undertakes not to remain absent from the trial Court in future. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly to the fact that the applicant was granted bail by the trial Court on merits, however, she remained absent on account of her illness as stated by her in the application. Her earlier surety has already been forfeited and the ends of justice will meet if she is allowed bail on her furnishing fresh surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./R-16/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.