2006 PLP 3155 (YLR)
MUKHTIAR ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3155 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Azizullah M. Memon, J |
| Parties | MUKHTIAR ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3155 (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 2006 PLP 3155 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Azizullah M. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 3155 (YLR) (MUKHTIAR ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)
Only one person was said to have suffered an injury for whom medical certificate was not available to prove such injury
Accused had remained in jail for a period of five years
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Aftab Ahmed Gorar for Applicant. Muhammad Saleem Jessar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.--Heard learned counsel for the parties. Order dated 22-11-2005 of rejection of the bail application of the applicant Mukhtiar Ali passed by the trial Court states that the allegation was against the applicant to have fired his revolver on the person of Gulzar Sandeelo who thereby sustained fire-arm injuries on his left leg; learned counsel appearing for the State on going through the police papers states at the Bar that the said Gulzar Sandeelo was not referred to the medical officer for examination and certificate regarding his injury, nor such certificate is available in the police file; learned State counsel further states that because the applicant has continuously remained in jail for a period of about five year, therefore, he has got no objection if' the applicant is admitted to bail, more particularly for the reason that co-accused is also on bail. Looking at the fact that only one person is said to have suffered an injury, for whom medical certificate is not available for any such injury and also the facts that the applicant has remained in jail for a period of five years, he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M-132/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.