2004 PLP 224 (MLD)
BISMILLAH KHAN‑‑‑Accused‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 224 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Talaat Qayum Qureshi, J |
| Parties | BISMILLAH KHAN‑‑‑Accused‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 224 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 224 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Talaat Qayum Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 224 (MLD) (BISMILLAH KHAN‑‑‑Accused‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Atlas Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 1st September, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑‑ Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S.5‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Not a .single independent witness was associated at the time of recovery‑‑ Investigation in case was complete and accused was no more required for the same and challan had also been submitted in the Court‑‑‑Question as to whether accused was a saboteur or subverter and whether circumstances were such as to give rise to reasonable suspicion that accused was not‑making or did not have allegedly recovered Kalashnikov and explosive substances in his possession or under his control for lawful object, would be determined after recording of evidence‑‑‑Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. Khalid Tanveer Rohaila for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Atlas Khan for Petitioner. Khalid Tanveer Rohaila for the State. Date of hearing: 1st September, 2003. Having been involved in case registered vide F.I.R. No.447 dated 24‑5‑2003 under section 13 A.O. and 5 Explosive Substances Act, at Police Station Hangu, the accused‑petitioner applied for his release on bail in the Court of learned, Judicial Magistrate who dismissed the same vide order dated' 15‑7‑2003. Thereafter, he moved the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hangu but his application met the same fate when it was rejected on 21‑7‑2003. Now he has moved this Court for his release on bail.
2. The accused‑petitioner was found in possession of one Kalashnikov and two handgrenades.
3. I have heard Mr. Atlas Khan learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Khalid Tanveer Rohaila, Advocate the learned counsel representing the State. I have also perused the record of the case.
4. The question as to whether the accused‑petitioner was a saboteur or subversions and that the circumstances were such as to give rise to reasonable suspicion that the accused‑petitioner was not making or did not have allegedly recovered Kalashnikov and explosive substances in his possession or under his control for lawful object would be determined after recording of evidence. Though he was arrested from Khasari Camp Hangu but not a single independent witness was associated at the time of recovery. The investigation is complete and the accused‑petitioner is no A more required for the same and challan as per learned counsel for the State has also been submitted in the Court. I, therefore, allow the bail application in hand and direct that the accused‑petitioner be released on bail provided that he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 (two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. H.B.T./919/P Bail granted.