2006 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL SUBHAN and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL SUBHAN and another — Applicants 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) (ABDUL SUBHAN and another — 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), S.379
Interim bail before arrest, grant of
Accused was Principal of a school and co-accused was a student of first year
Both accused being respectable persons had allegedly been falsely implicated in case on account of election rivalry
Prima facie it appeared to be a mala fide act on part of prosecution just to please ruling party by impleading accused belonging to opposition in case for theft of goats
Interim bail before arrest granted to accused, was confirmed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.-In this case recorded at Police Station Deeplo, District Mithi, the applicants have been involved for committing theft of four goats. Applicant Abdul Subhan, states that he is Principal of Hilal Public School and applicant Abdul Karim, is a student of first year. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicants being respectable persons have been falsely implicated in the case on account of election rivalry. During the by-election, Mr. Shoukat Aziz, was the candidate of ruling party and the applicants were workers of the M.M.A. candidate Dr. Mumtaz Memon. Learned State Counsel, have opposed the bail application for the reason that specific role of firing has been attributed to the applicants. However, they have conceded that the alleged firing was ineffective and nobody sustained injury. On the face of it, it appears to be a mala fide act on the part of prosecution just to please the ruling party by implicating the applicants belonging to the opposition, in this case for the theft of goats. Consequently, interim bail before arrest granted to both the applicants vide order, dated 23-11-2004 is hereby, confirmed. H.B.T./A-257/K Bail confirmed.