P L D 1995 Karachi 328 (PLP)
SHAHABUDDIN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1995 Karachi 328 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.156(1)(8)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑One hundred tolas of gold was allegedly recovered from the rectum of accused after its detection when his body was X‑rayed ‑‑‑Challan had been submitted to the Court showing six prosecution witnesses, but none of them was a Doctor or X -ray technician which was a sufficient ground for further inquiry into the guilt of accused‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. p. 329 A |
| Bench Members | Shafi Muhammadi, J |
| Parties | SHAHABUDDIN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1995 Karachi 328 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1995 Karachi 328 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.156(1)(8)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑One hundred tolas of gold was allegedly recovered from the rectum of accused after its detection when his body was X‑rayed ‑‑‑Challan had been submitted to the Court showing six prosecution witnesses, but none of them was a Doctor or X -ray technician which was a sufficient ground for further inquiry into the guilt of accused‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. p. 329 A bench comprising: Shafi Muhammadi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1995 Karachi 328 (PLP) (SHAHABUDDIN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.156(1)(8)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑One hundred tolas of gold was allegedly recovered from the rectum of accused after its detection when his body was X‑rayed ‑‑‑Challan had been submitted to the Court showing six prosecution witnesses, but none of them was a Doctor or X -ray technician which was a sufficient ground for further inquiry into the guilt of accused‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. [p. 329] A Sohail Muzaffar for Applicant. Farooq H. Naik, DA: G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
It might be unnecessary to reproduce prosecution story except to mention recovery of 100 tolas of gold on 15‑11‑1994, as claimed by the prosecution, from rectum of the applicant alter its detection when his body was .X‑rayed. All legal requirements, regarding investigation, were completed and challan was submitted on 20‑11‑1994 showing six witnesses against the applicant but none of them is, admittedly, a doctor or x-ray technician. Trial Court while rejecting bail application, did not touch this important aspect which, alone, was a sufficient ground for further inquiry into his guilt to grant him bail. Resultantly applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.75,000 (rupees seventy‑five thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./S‑1131/K Bail allowed.