2008 PLP 926 (MLD)
NISAR-Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 926 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NISAR-Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 926 (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 2008 PLP 926 (MLD)?
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: 2008 PLP 926 (MLD) (NISAR-Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324 & 337-F(ii)/34
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)
Accused was not named in the F.I.R. and was in custody since long
Co-accused who was nominated in the F.I.R. had already been granted bail vide order passed by the Trial Court
No proceedings under S.87 or 88, Cr.P.C. had been taken against the accused
State Counsel had stated that accused could be released on bail considering the rule of consistency
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM RABBANI, J.
The name of applicant is not stated in the F.I.R. registered for offences under sections 324, 337-F(ii), 34, P.P.C. and 13(d) Arms Ordinance being crime No.2 of 2002 of Police Station Salehpat on 17-1-2002 about the incident which took place on 15-1-2002 at 0130 hours. The allegations against the applicant are that he had subsequently met with the complainant and disclosed to him that he was involved in the commission of offence; as such he was challaned showing him as an absconder in the charge-sheet. The applicant was arrested on 30-4-2003 and since then he is in custody. Co-accused Muhammad Ashraf who was nominated in the F.I.R. has already been granted bail vide order, dated 19-8-2002 passed by learned trial Court. No proceedings under section 87 or 88 have been taken against the applicant. Learned State counsel states that the applicant may be released on bail considering the rule of consistency. Keeping in view the case of Rab Nawaz v. State (PLD 1996 Lahore 1240), the case of Nadeem v. State (PLD 1996 Karachi 40) and the case of Dosoo v. State (2003 PCr.LJ 933), applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./N-10/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.