2006 PLP 2994 (YLR)
RAJIB — Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2994 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Faisal Arab, J |
| Parties | RAJIB — Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2994 (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 2006 PLP 2994 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Faisal Arab, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2994 (YLR) (RAJIB — Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497-Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.21
F.I.R. was lodged by the police against accused despite no criminal offence was made out against him
Trial Court, on the basis of such allegation, had not applied its blond in the case and rejected bait application of accused considering his past criminal cases
Trial Court, on bare statement of prosecution, had assumed that accused held criminal record without considering the fact whether accused was convicted in those offences or not
Past conviction was no ground to assume that accused was also involved in crime, which too on the face of it did not appear to be criminal offence
Accused was enlarged on bail, in circumstances. Sarfraz Khan Jatoi for Applicant Mushtaq Ahmed Abbasi, Assistant A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAISAL ARAB, J.
From the contents of F.I.R. Crime No.22 of 2005, Police Station, Dakhan District Shikarpur, offence punishable under section 21/1, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, it appears that no criminal offence is made out and in spite of that F.I.R. was lodged by the police. It is also surprising that on the basis of such allegation the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Shikarpur, has not applied its mind in this case and rejected the bail application considering his past criminal cases against the present accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Shikarpur, on bare statement of the prosecution has assumed that present applicant holds criminal record without considering the fact whether he was convicted in these offences or not. Needless to mention that past conviction is no ground to assume that the applicant is also involved in the reported crime which too on the face of it does not appear, to be a criminal offence. Under the circumstances, the applicant is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.25,000 with PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./R-24/K Bail granted.