2005 P Cr (PLP)
JAMAL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAMAL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 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: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (JAMAL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324
F.I.R. showed that complainant had attributed injury caused to him to a person other than the accused
Only role attributed to accused was that he was also present at the time of incident
Bail application of accused was dismissed by Trial Court on the ground that accused was an absconder and was not entitled to concession of bail-- Even if accused was absconder, but if he applied for bail subsequently after being arrested, then the Court had to consider whether he was entitled to bail on the facts relating to incident or not
No overt role had been attributed to accused
Accused, held, was entitled to bail, especially when he remained behind the bars without any proceedings in the case for more than a year.
Judgment & Decree
This bail application has been filed in connection with Crime No. 1 of 1995, Police Station Ghumra. It relates to an incident which took place in the year, 1995. Apparently the present applicant along with others made an attempt to cause hurt to the complainant party. From the plain reading of the F. I. R. it is very clear that the complainant attributed the injury caused to him by one Munawar Ali. The only role attributed to the present applicant is that he was also present at the time of the incident. The present applicant is supposed to have absconded and he was arrested in the year 2001. The bail application moved on his behalf has been dismissed on the ground that he was absconder and therefore, not entitled to the concession of bail. It is well-settled law that even if a person is absconder, but if he applies for bail subsequently after being arrested then the Court has to consider as to whether he would have been entitled to bail on the facts relating to the incident or not. In this case no overt role has been attributed to him from the plain reading of the F. I. R. Under the circumstances he would have been entitled to the grant of bail. Furthermore he has been arrested since the year 2001 and has remained behind the bars without the case proceedings for more than a year. The above are the reasons behind which the bail was granted by a short order passed on 30-5-2003. H.B.T./J-9/K Bail granted: