2008 PLP 679 (MLD)
ABDUL SATTAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 679 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 679 (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 2008 PLP 679 (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: 2008 PLP 679 (MLD) (ABDUL SATTAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
No specific role was shown against accused, except that he was standing in the house of complainant while incident took place
Investigating Officer was also of the view that during investigation he was not able to get any information from accused with reference to the incident
No recovery had taken place
No identification parade was held to check false implication--All said factors went in favour of accused and had created doubt
Accused was allowed to be enlarged on bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.
Case of prosecution is that on 27-2-2007 this applicant along with his other accomplices entered in the house of complainant and had robbed certain golden ornaments, cash of Rs.12,000 and licensed pistol. According to prosecution on the same day this applicant was arrested and complainant had identified him as one of the culprit who entered in his house and committed robbery. According to prosecution one mobile phone was recovered from his possession but as per contents of F.I.R. the same is not shown as case property, thus its recovery to the present case is immaterial. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Neither the description of property has been given in the F.I.R. nor any case property was recovered from the possession of this applicant at the time of his arrest, though according to prosecution he was arrested just after few hours of this incident. Complainant has also not shown any specific role of the applicant in the commission of offence mere presence of him along with other culprits as shown needs satisfactory proof. It is further stated that after his arrest no identification parade was held. Contents of challan and arguments advanced by learned counsel somehow supports to each other as it is stated by Investigating Officer that in spite of his best efforts he was not able to find out any clue about other culprits of the incident as according to applicant when he was returning after doing labour was arrested by the police from way. No specific role is shown against this applicant except that he was standing in the house of complainant while incident took place. Investigating Officer is also of the view that during investigation he was notable to get any information from this applicant with reference to the incident. No recovery has taken place. No identification parade was held to check the false implication. All these factors go in favour of applicant and creates doubt. Hence applicant is allowed to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-3/K Bail granted.