2010 PLP 1027 (MLD)
TAHIR AHMED ZAHID — Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1027 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TAHIR AHMED ZAHID — Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1027 (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 2010 PLP 1027 (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: 2010 PLP 1027 (MLD) (TAHIR AHMED ZAHID — Applicant 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), Ss.379 & 427
Theft and mischief causing damage
Ad interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of--Accused was granted pre-arrest bail, but the Police had not submitted the challan
Was yet to be seen at the time of evidence, whether accused had committed the offence for which he had been charged
Punishment for which accused was charged, would not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
No such allegation that accused had misused the concession of bail granted to him
Judgment & Decree
MAQBOOL AHMED AWAN, J.
On 12-11-2008, the interim bail before arrest was granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P. R. Bond of the like amount. Today the matter was fixed for confirmation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant, the S.D.O. HESCO WAPDA (East) Division, Thatta; that no sufficient evidence was collected by the Prosecution to connect the applicant; that the offence for which the applicant is charged would not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that till today the Police has not yet submitted the challan. He has relied upon the case-law reported in PLD 1995 SC 34 and 1993 PCr.LJ
446. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the grant of bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material placed on record. It appears that the applicant was granted bail on 12-11-2008 and till today, the Police has not submitted the challan. It is yet to be seen at the time of evidence whether the applicant has committed the offence for which he has been charged. The punishment for which the applicant is charged would not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. There is no such allegation that the applicant has misused the concession of bail granted to him. In view of this, I confirm the bail of the applicant granted earlier on the same terms and conditions. H.B.T./T-12/K Bail confirmed.