1993 P Cr (PLP)
SHER MUHAMMAD and others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMMAD and others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 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 1993 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: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (SHER MUHAMMAD and others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- I have heard Mr. Awan Rahmatullah Nadeem, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi learned AA.-G. for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.364/34
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.i3-B
Abductee had not been recovered from accused's possession despite lengthy interrogation
F.I.R. suffered from a delay of about seven days
Accused also apparently did not know about the visit of abductee to the place of abduction on the day of occurrence
Case against accused was, therefore, one of further enquiry-- Accused were admitted to bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 2161(2) and Criminal Bail Application No.179 of 1988 ref. Awan Rahmatullah Nadeem for Applicants. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, AA.-G. for the State. This application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicants in connection with the case registered against them on 30-5-1992, at Police Station Kandhkot under sections 364/34, P.P.C. and 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, on the complaint of Haji Abdul Rehman. According to F.I.R. on 23-5-1992, the complainant Haji Abdul Rehman alongwith P.Ws. Sher Muhammad, Haji Arbelo and abductee Muhammad Bachal went from their village to Kandhkot in a Bus. They alighted from the bus at Mohallah Gharibabad of Kandhkot. They proceeded Station, Kandhkot, where abductee had to submit an appucLion ror nrs retirement. Applicants Sher Muhammad, Moula Bux; Khan Muhammad and co-accused Nabi Bux duly armed with guns and hatchets came there in a Suzuki car of white colour and they forcibly made the abductee sit in the car and took him away. The motive for the abduction of abductee Muhammad Bachal is that he had declared his wife Mst. Izzat Khatoon as Kari with applicant Sher Muhammad and had demanded compensation for that reason from him, but the accused party had resented to it. I have heard Mr. Awan Rahmatullah Nadeem, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi learned AA.-G. for the State. It has been contended that the applicants live within Taluka Thul and the complainant party live within Taluka Kashmore, and as such, there is nothing to show that how the applicants came to know that on that particular day, the abductee would come to Mohallah Garibabad of Kandhkot. It has been submitted further that police had interrogated the applicants for about 15 days, but the abductee has not been recovered from their possession. Another submission of the learned counsel is that there is delay of seven days in lodging the report with police. In support of his contention for bail, he has relied on Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 2161(2) and unreported Criminal Bail Application No.179 of 1988 of this Court. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi learned AA: G. concedes to the prayer of the applicants for bail. Since the abductee has not been recovered from the possession of the applicants although they were subjected to interrogation for a long time, and I there has been delay of about 7 days in lodging the report with police, and there is also no apparent reason with the applicants to come to know that the abductee would come to Kandhkot on particular day, I consider it a case of further enquiry, Consequently, bail is granted to the applicants in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety and P.R. Bond in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./S-922/K Bail allowed.