1995 PLP 371 (MLD)
MUKHTIAR AHMED alias MUKHOO‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 371 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Shoukat Hussain Zubedi, J |
| Parties | MUKHTIAR AHMED alias MUKHOO‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 371 (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 1995 PLP 371 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Shoukat Hussain Zubedi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 371 (MLD) (MUKHTIAR AHMED alias MUKHOO‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). 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), S.307/353‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(1)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Case against accused was of ineffective firing‑‑‑Five persons had allegedly fired on the police but no one was injured‑‑‑Case against accused, therefore, needed further inquiry‑‑‑Bail was granted to accused accordingly. A.R. Farooque Pirzada for Applicant. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A: G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
A.R. Farooque Pirzada for Applicant. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A: G. for the State. The applicant Mukhtiar Ahmed alias Mukhoo is facing trial for offences under sections 307, 353, P.P.C. read with 17/1, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The case of the prosecution is that on 22‑9‑1992 at about 4‑00 a.m. the police party had reached Village Hajani and set for Nakabandi on the eastern side of the road from the said village. At that time they saw five persons emerged from the grass and on the light of traffic vehicles, they saw that cut of whom three were having double‑barrel guns, one of them having single‑barrel gun and one person had Lathi. On the challenge given by the police, the accused persons resorted to firing. In retaliation, the police also fired on account of which the present applicant was injured. It is said that the other four co‑accused managed to escape while present applicant was caught. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and so also Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, learned A.A.‑G. for the State. The point raised by the learned counsel is that the co‑accused who were arrested and were also picked out in identification parade are enlarged on bail, and so far the merits of the case are concerned, it is case of ineffective firing while the offence under section 353, P.P.C. is bailable. He has further pointed out that in reality it was the police who resorted to indiscriminate firing resulting m the injuries to the applicant and in order to cover‑up, the present case was registered. In these circumstances, the learned AA.‑G. also does not oppose this bail application. Taking into the consideration the aforesaid circumstances, it is obvious that it is case of ineffective firing and it is also strange that five persons are said to have fired on the police but no one was injured. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this is a case of further enquiry. Accordingly bail is granted to the applicant on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and P.R. Bond in their like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑2005/K Bail granted.