2005 PLP 147 (MLD)
MAZAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 147 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAZAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 147 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 147 (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: 2005 PLP 147 (MLD) (MAZAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/337-A(i)/337-L(ii)/ 337-F(i)/337-F(v)/504/147/148/149
Accused had been involved in the case on account of old enmity and under suspicion
Accused remained in custody for a period of about two and half years without any fault on his part and in said continuous custody only the charge had been framed
On two dates witnesses were in attendance but case could not proceed for want of case property
Deceased was killed as a result of one shot
No other material was connecting the accused with commission of crime-- Accused having been able to make out a case for bail, same was granted to him, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State. Bail is sought by Mazan son of Muhammad Ilyas Chandio in a case bearing Crime No.4 of 2002 registered at Police Station Bhand Mari District Dadu for an offence under sections 302; 324, 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 147, 148, 149 and 504, P.P.C The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Dadu vide order dated 26-6-2004. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on 23-4-2002, complainant Qurban Ali lodged his report stating therein that he is working as "Hari" at the lands of Miral Lakhair. Some time back dispute arose between Miral Lakhair and Mazan Chandio over mound erected as boundary of land and Faisla of said dispute was held. On 22-4-2002, he along with his brother Manzoor, Mumtaz, Altaf and relative Muhammad Aslam son of Ghulam Shabir Chandio were present for cleaning wheat crop when thrasher was working. At about 10-00 a.m. accused Mazan, Niaz, Passand, Sher all sons of Muhammad Ilyas Chandio who were armed with guns and three unidentified persons whose faces were opened, they saw them very well on Tractor light and will be identified if seen again. The unidentified accused were armed with hatchet and Lathis. The accused Mazan on their arrival abused them and asked that there is dispute between them on said land, therefore, today they will not be spared. Saying so he fired a shot from his gun upon Muhammad Aslam which hit him on his waist hence he fell down while raising cry. In the meanwhile other accused caused backside of hatchet, Lathi and butt of weapons to his brothers. They raised cries and on their cries their relative Roshan came running who gave oath to the accused and rescued them. The accused then decamped from the place of incident. Complainant party then took away injured. The F.I.R. to that effect was lodged. The Investigation followed and in due course, the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dadu. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case against his client is false who has been involved in this case on account of an old enmity and under suspicion. It has also been contended that the applicant was arrested on 2-6-2002 and till now he is in continuous custody, but the charge has only been framed. It has also been argued that on two dates namely 14-4-2004 and 7-7-2004, the witnesses were in attendance but the case could not proceed for want of property. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the applicant has remained in custody .for a period of two years four months and fourteen days which is, without any fault on behalf of applicant. The counsel further stressed the need that deceased was killed as a result of one shot. The injury No. 1 being entry whereas the injury No.2 being exit, being as a result of one shot. The counsel further submits that besides there is no other material connecting the applicant with the commission of crime. On all these scores it has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a fit case where the applicant could be enlarged on bail. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned State counsel has contended that the case of the applicant is covered by hardship inasmuch as he has remained in custody for the above mentioned period for which the applicant could not be held responsible. In the circumstances, the counsel for the State concedes to the above legal position and raised no objection for the grant of bail. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record which reveals that the learned counsel for the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail is granted to the applicant Mazan provided he furnishes solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lass only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Criminal Bail Application No.S-597 of 2004 stands disposed of. H.B.T./M-149/K Bail granted.