2007 PLP 145 (YLR)
ZAHID alias NAZIR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 145 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | ZAHID alias NAZIR — 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 145 (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 2007 PLP 145 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 145 (YLR) (ZAHID alias NAZIR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)
F.I.R., was lodged after delay of 27 days and no explanation was available for said delay
Accused was in custody for the last more than 7 months, but no recovery had been made on his pointation
Case against accused had become doubtful and of further inquiry into his guilt
Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. Jai Jai Veshnu Mange Ram for Applicant. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.
The applicant is facing trial in crime No.4 of 2006 of Police Station Nabi Shah Wagan under section 17 (3) E.H.O. 1979. The allegation against the applicant is that on 20-2-2006 he along with two co-accused armed with K.K. robbed the complainant and took Rs.15,000 of various notes from daraz of the table and NIC from pocket and one golden ring from finger and ran away on their motorcycle. The application was filed before the trial Court who has dismissed the same on the ground that delay in lodging the report is not sufficient to grant bail in haraba cases. The trial Court while dismissing bail application has given the right to the applicant to move fresh bail application after examination of two private witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is 27 days unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. The applicant was in custody for 10 days which is confirmed from application under section 491, Cr.P.C. dated 16-3-2006 filed by the cousin of the applicant. He further submitted that no robbed article was recovered from the applicant. According to him since no recovery has been made a case of further inquiry has been made out. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State Counsel, after going through the police papers has confirmed that the delay is unexplained and that no recovery of robbed article has been made from the applicant. He further submits that one K.K. was recovered on the pointation of the applicant but the same was secured by some other police station. He has frankly conceded to the grant of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The F.I.R. was lodged after delay of 27 days and there is no explanation on the part of the applicant that as to why this delay was occurred. The applicant is in custody since last more that 7 months but no recovery has been made on his pointation. Lodging of the F.I.R. after 27 days without any explanation and without recovery of any robbed material the case has become doubtful and the accused/applicant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. In view of the position, I find that the case of further inquiry into the guilt of the applicant has been made out. I therefore, direct that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./Z-15/K Bail granted.