2005 PLP 266 (MLD)
ABDUL KARIM and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 266 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J |
| Parties | ABDUL KARIM and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 266 (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 2005 PLP 266 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 266 (MLD) (ABDUL KARIM and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused had submitted that they had patched up the matter with complainant party aria co‑accused had already, filed application under S.345(2), Cr.P.C. before Trial Court‑‑‑Accused had prayed that interim pre‑arrest bail be granted to them so that they could appear before Trial Court where case was pending and file the compromise‑‑‑Interim pre‑arrest bail was granted to accused, in circumstances. Shafi Muhammad Memon for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused had submitted that they had patched up the matter with complainant party aria co‑accused had already, filed application under S.345(2), Cr.P.C. before Trial Court‑‑‑Accused had prayed that interim pre‑arrest bail be granted to them so that they could appear before Trial Court where case was pending and file the compromise‑‑‑Interim pre‑arrest bail was granted to accused, in circumstances. Shafi Muhammad Memon for Applicant.
1. Allowed.
2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
3. Learned counsel says that previously this Court had refused bail before arrest to the applicants in Criminal Bail Application No.323 of 2004 vide order dated. 14‑5‑2004. He further submits that since then the accused have patched up the matter with the complainant party and co accused viz., Ayoob and Nooral have already filed an application under section 345(2), Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court: However, since NBWs have been issued against the present applicants, they could not move the necessary application. Learned counsel also submits that according to the challan filed by the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge, the applicants have been released under section 497, Cr.P.C. and placed in Column No.2 thereof. However, the learned trial Court, did not agree with the investigation conducted by the police authorities and has now issued NBWs for the arrest of the applicants. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that interim pre‑arrest bail be granted to the applicants, so that they can appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, where the case is pending, and file the compromise. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the case file. Interim pre‑arrest bail is granted to the applicants provided they submit surety in the sum, of Rs.100,000 (rupees one lac) each along with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. Notice to Addl. A.‑G. to come up for confirmation or otherwise on 7‑9‑2004. H.B.T./A‑143/K Bail granted.