2005 PLP 284 (YLR)
ANWAR ALI and 3 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 284 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ata-ur-Rehman, J |
| Parties | ANWAR ALI and 3 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 284 (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 284 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ata-ur-Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 284 (YLR) (ANWAR ALI and 3 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-H(ii)/382/504/506/147/148/149-- Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of -- F.I.R. in the case was lodged after 45 days of incident
No recovery had been made from accused though they had joined investigation
Possibility of false implication of accused in the matter with ulterior motive could not be ruled out-- Earlier order granting interim bail to accused was confirmed on same terms and conditions. Basharat Ahmed Jatt for Applicants. Rasheed Qureshi Assistant A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Basharat Ahmed Jatt for Applicants. Rasheed Qureshi Assistant A.-G. for the State. This is a bail before arrest application filed by Anwar Ali, Haji Arbab Ali, Sajjan and Lakhmeer who are involved in Crime No. 1 of 2004 under sections 382, 506(ii), 147, 148, 149, 504 and 337-H(ii), P.P.C. of Police Station, Khero Dero. Brief facts of the case are narrated in F.I.R. Heard both the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the last of hearing complainant Saleem Bughio was present and stated that the matter is being patched up between the parties. Mr. Jatt submitted that in fact the matter has already been patched up and has been reduced into writing but is not filed in Court so far. He further submitted that F.I.R. was lodged after 45 days of the incident, no recovery has been made from the applicants though they have joined the investigation. Challan has already been submitted and he conceded that there is no further need of the applicants to be kept in police custody and no prejudice will be caused to the complainant/prosecution if their bail granted earlier on 4-8-2.004 is confirmed. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the maximum punishment of section 382 is 10 years and therefore, is covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. I considered the submissions. Agreeing with the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged after 45 days, no recovery has been made from them; therefore, there is possibility of false implication of the applicants in this matter with ulterior motives cannot be ruled out. The application is therefore, allowed the earlier order granting interim bail to the applicants is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. H. B. T./A-118/K Bail granted.