2007 PLP 924 (YLR)
ALI SHER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 924 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J |
| Parties | ALI SHER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 924 (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 2007 PLP 924 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 924 (YLR) (ALI SHER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.---Heard Messrs Nisar Ahmed Abro, Advocate for applicant and Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State counsel. The latter has no objection to the grant of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 337-H(ii) & 392
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.20
Matter was reported to the police on the next day of occurrence and accused was not put to identification by complainant and other witnesses
One of the prosecution witnesses; after four days of incident stated before the police that he had identified one of the robbers to be accused
Said witness had not assigned any plausible explanation for not disclosing his name for four days
Neither the robbed mobile phone-set nor any weapon was recovered from accused
Where prosecution witness did not disclose name of accused to anybody for four days and accused was not put to identification of said five persons including complainant, who had seen the robbed property nor any weapon was recovered from him, case of accused required further enquiry as contemplated by S.497(2), Cr. P. C.
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Nisar Ahmed Abro for Applicant. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Heard Messrs Nisar Ahmed Abro, Advocate for applicant and Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State counsel. The latter has no objection to the grant of bail. The allegation against the applicant is that on 26-8-2006 at about 8-30 p.m. he along with one unidentified robber, armed with pistols, robbed on gun point, prosecution witness Mushtaq Ahmed of his mobile telephone set in old Bazar, Mehar, while he was on his way to his house. They were chased by accused. Khalid, Chowkidar of the town, who fired at them with his gun but the fire missed the target and hit complainant Ghulam Shabir's brother Sikander Ali and P.W. Imran. At that time complainant Ghulam Shabir. Wazir, Muhammad Hassan and Abdul Lateef were present there and had witnessed the incident. Deceased Sikander. Ali succumbed the same day. The matter was reported to police on the next day i.e. on 27-8-2006, at 2-00 p.m. The present applicant was not put to the identification of complainant Ghulam Shabir and other witnesses, namely, Wazir, Muhammad Hassan, Abdul Lateef and Imran. However, after four days of the incident i.e. on 30-8-2006, Musthaq Ahmed stated before police that he, has identified one of the robbers to be the present applicant. He has not assigned any plausible explanation for not disclosing his name for four days. Neither the robbed mobile phone set nor any weapon was recovered from the applicant. In such circumstances, where Mushtaque Ahmed did not disclose the applicant's name to anybody for four days and the applicant was not put to the identification of the above mentioned five witnesses, namely, complainant Ghulam Shabir, Wazir, Muhammad Hassan, Abdul Lateef and Imran, who had seen the robbers while being chased by accused Khalid and neither the robbed property nor any weapon was recovered from him, the case of the applicant requires further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and therefore, he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./A-13/K Bail granted.