2008 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ATIF and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ATIF and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ATIF and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Application for suspension of judgment till final decision of appeal
Contentions of the applicants were that case in point was that of no evidence; that main witness/complainant on whose pointation applicants were arrested had neither been produced in evidence nor memo. of arrest and recovery had been brought on record to prove the guilt against the applicants; that the mobile phone which was said to have been shown as stolen property, was owned by one of the applicants and that besides two police officials there was no eye-witness of the incident
State Counsel having also consented to the grant of the application, High Court in circumstances, allowed the applicants to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 each with P.R. bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.
By application under disposal appellants have prayed for suspension of impugned judgment till the final decision of this criminal appeal. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that it is a case of no evidence. The main witness complainant on whose pointation these appellants were arrested had neither been produced in evidence nor memo of arrest and recovery have been brought on record to prove the guilt against these appellants. Mobile phone which is said to have been shown as stolen property, was owned by co-accused Muhammad Toheed. Besides two police officials there is no eye-witness of the incident. In view of the fact as placed by learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Sohail Jabbar, State Counsel consented to the grant of application. The offence does not fall within prohibitory clause. Hence the appellants are allowed to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 each with P?R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Adjourned to 4-4-2006 for further hearing. M.B.A./M-76/K Bail allowed.