2006 PLP 1472 (MLD)
NASEER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Complainant
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1472 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NASEER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Complainant |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1472 (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 2006 PLP 1472 (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: 2006 PLP 1472 (MLD) (NASEER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Complainant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 148, 149 & 114
Allegation against accused was that he was armed with gun at the time of commission of offence
Accused though allegedly was armed with gun, but he had not caused any injury to the complainant
Presence of accused at the place of Wardat and his involvement in the commission of offence would be determined at the trial
Case, in circumstances required further inquiry for the purpose of determination of vicarious liability and sharing common object
Material available on record showed that no reasonable grounds existed for believing that accused was guilty of non-bailable offence
Judgment & Decree
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.
The applicant is facing trial in Crime No.29 of 2002 of Police Station Rustam, District Shikarpur, registered under sections 324, 148, 149, 114, P.P.C. The allegation against the applicant is that he being armed with a gun was a member of the party, who fired and injured Umed Ali, the complainant. The bail application was moved before the trial Court, which was rejected on the consideration that the applicant was sharing common object with co-accused, and that applicant remained fugitive of law and his case is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Haibat. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged with an unexplained delay of eight hours, the other co-accused Haibat is granted bail and that the case of the applicant is on better footing, no overt act was attributed to the applicant and mere abscondence is not sufficient to deprive the applicant from the concession of bail. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State Counsel, has submitted that there is no allegation of firing against the applicant and the only role assigned to him is his presence at the time of wardat armed with gun. The learned State Counsel has conceded the bail plea raised on behalf of the applicant, on the ground that no allegation of firing has been levelled against the applicant and question of vicarious liability and sharing common intention is to be decided at the stage of trial. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before me. The allegation against the applicant is of his presence being armed with gun at the time of commission of offence. Though the applicant was allegedly armed with a gun but has not caused any injury- to the complainant. The presence of the applicant at the place of wardat and his involvement in the commission of the offence will be determined at the trial. The case requires further inquiry for the purpose of determination of vicarious liability and sharing common object. From the material available on record it appears that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is guilty of a non-bailable offence. I, therefore, allow this bail application and release the applicant on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./N-18/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.