2005 PLP 3220 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD BACHAL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 3220 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BACHAL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 3220 (YLR)?
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 3220 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 3220 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD BACHAL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- The learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that nothing was secured from the applicant; that there is old enmity between the parties; that there is inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R.; that the applicant did not participate in commission of offence.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.396
Ten dacoits armed with K.Ks., guns, rifles and hatchets reached the place of incident and robbed twenty cattle which were being grazed by deceased, when deceased resisted them one of the accused persons fired at deceased causing his death
Offence of murder and Haraba/dacoity, in circumstances had been committed and all accused were equally responsible for commission of Haraba/dacoity
Prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case
Reasonable grounds were available to believe that accused were guilty of offence which fell within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused were not entitled to concession of bail. Amanullah G. Malik for Applicant. Muhammad Mehmood S. Khan Yousif, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J
This is a case of Haraba/dacoity with murder. The incident alleged to have taken place on 8-4-2003 at 6-00 p.m. on the bank of river Indus near Village Murad Ali Jatoi when 10 dacoits armed with deadly weapons like K.Ks. guns, rifles and hatchets reached the place of incident. The applicant was one of them. He was allegedly armed with hatchet. At the place of incident the deceased was grazing the cattle the dacoits challenged the deceased in order to take away the cattle. The deceased resisted with the result accused Abdul Wahab fired at the deceased which hit him and he fell down. The other accused fired in the air. Thereafter the accused took away 20 cattle which were being grazed by the deceased. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.A.-G. The learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that nothing was secured from the applicant; that there is old enmity between the parties; that there is inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R.; that the applicant did not participate in commission of offence. Learned A.A.-G. has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the offence of Haraba and murder fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the name of the applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the material placed in the case and found that under the case of haraba/dacoity if 5 or more persons participate to commit the robbery then the offence is complete. In the present case 10 dacoits armed with K.Ks., guns, rifles and hatchets reached the place of incident and robbed 20 cattle which were being grazed by the deceased, when the deceased resisted then one of the accused Abdul Wahab fired at the deceased which caused his death. As such the offence of murder and Haraba/dacoity have been committed. Thus the applicant is equally responsible for the commission of Haraba/dacoity. The P. Ws. have supported the prosecution case. After considering the material available on the record, I am of the view that there are reasonable grounds that the applicant is guilty of the offence which fall within the prohibitory clause under section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore he is not entitled to the concession of bail. The application is dismissed. H.B.T./M-273/K Bail refused.