P L D 1990 Karachi 485 (PLP)
Haji ABDUL KARIM ‑‑‑Applicant Versus S.H.O., P.S. MITHIANI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1990 Karachi 485 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/34‑‑‑Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S.561‑A‑‑‑Record showed that three accused persons were involved in the incident, but they had been shown as unidentified persons as incident was committed at night‑‑‑Description of accused persons was not given in the F.I.R:--‑Constitutional petition challenging the order of detention of one of the said accused under West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was accepted by the High Court and order impugned therein was quashed and detenu was got released from the jail and handed over in custody to Police‑‑ Complainant stated that his further statement was not recorded by Police and since the incident had taken place at night, he had not identified any one of the assailants and had absolved detenu saying that certainly he was not one of the assailants‑‑‑High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. admitted accused to interim bail in circumstances.‑‑Bail. |
| Bench Members | Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ. and Syed Abdur Rehman, J |
| Parties | Haji ABDUL KARIM ‑‑‑Applicant Versus S.H.O., P.S. MITHIANI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1990 Karachi 485 (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 P L D 1990 Karachi 485 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/34‑‑‑Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S.561‑A‑‑‑Record showed that three accused persons were involved in the incident, but they had been shown as unidentified persons as incident was committed at night‑‑‑Description of accused persons was not given in the F.I.R:--‑Constitutional petition challenging the order of detention of one of the said accused under West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was accepted by the High Court and order impugned therein was quashed and detenu was got released from the jail and handed over in custody to Police‑‑ Complainant stated that his further statement was not recorded by Police and since the incident had taken place at night, he had not identified any one of the assailants and had absolved detenu saying that certainly he was not one of the assailants‑‑‑High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. admitted accused to interim bail in circumstances.‑‑Bail. bench comprising: Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ. and Syed Abdur Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1990 Karachi 485 (PLP) (Haji ABDUL KARIM ‑‑‑Applicant Versus S.H.O., P.S. MITHIANI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.M. Nadeem, A.A.‑G., (Sindh) for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/34‑‑‑Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S.561‑A‑‑‑Record showed that three accused persons were involved in the incident, but they had been shown as unidentified persons as incident was committed at night‑‑‑Description of accused persons was not given in the F.I.R:--‑Constitutional petition challenging the order of detention of one of the said accused under West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was accepted by the High Court and order impugned therein was quashed and detenu was got released from the jail and handed over in custody to Police‑‑ Complainant stated that his further statement was not recorded by Police and since the incident had taken place at night, he had not identified any one of the assailants and had absolved detenu saying that certainly he was not one of the assailants‑‑‑High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. admitted accused to interim bail in circumstances.‑‑[Bail]. Allah Bux Panhwar for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C J.‑‑‑Rule Nisi is executed and detenu namely Noor Muhammad is produced in the Court by S.H.O., P.S. Mithiani. Inspector Muhammad Azeem Ghoto of C.I.A. is present on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned A.A.‑G. has stated that according to the Police Officers, detenu has been taken in custody on 23‑8‑1990 from his village in connection with investigation of F.I.R. No.18 of 1990 registered at P.S. Mithiani on 17‑7‑1990 for offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. Relevant record is also brought and it appears from perusal of F.I.R. that three accused persons were involved in the incident, but they have been shown as unidentified persons as incident was committed at night. In the F.I.R. there is no description of accused persons. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that in respect of same detenu Constitutional petition was filed in the High Court challenging order of detention under M.P.O. and that Constitutional petition was allowed and order impugned therein was quashed on 22‑8‑1990, but detenu was got released from Jail and was handed over in custody to P.S. Mithiani. On our asking as to why no further action was taken on F.I.R. and suddenly the action was taken on 23‑8‑1990, after order of detention was quashed, no satisfactory explanation was put forward and it was done when no such statement of complainant or any other witness was recorded naming detenu as one of the accused, who was present at the time of incident. Learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that complainant in the criminal case, who was injured, is present in the Court. Complainant was called and enquiry was made from him and he has stated before us that his further statement is not recorded by Police and since the incident had taken place at night, he had not identified any one of the assailants and has absolved detenu present in the Court saying that certainly he was not one of the assailants. In paragraph 2 of the petition it is mentioned that detenu's maternal uncle Abdul Haq Bhurt had contested election against Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Jatoi son of Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, who is now Caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan. Keeping in view facts of this matter as stated above, while exercising our inherent jurisdiction under section 501‑A, Cr.P.C., we admit detenu namley Noor Muhammad to interim bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with r one surety and P.R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of Nazir of this Court in F.I.R. No.18 of 1990 registered at P.S. Mithiani under section 307/34, P.P.C.I Hearing is adjourned to 13‑9‑1990. M.B.A./A‑923/K Interim bail granted.