MLD 2009

2009 PLP 1047 (MLD)

SAEED AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2009-May-25
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP 1047 (MLD)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties SAEED AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1047 (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 2009 PLP 1047 (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: 2009 PLP 1047 (MLD) (SAEED AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Headnotes / Summary

S.497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 379, 511, 148 & 149

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

F.I.R. in the case was registered after more than 9 hours of the alleged incident

Complainant had stated in the F.I.R. that out of five unidentified persons three were armed with guns and two were armed with hatchets

Complainant had further stated that he did not identify the culprits at that time

Even in statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. the name of accused did not transpire

Marks of identification of culprits were neither mentioned in the F.I.R. nor in 161, Cr.P.C. statements of the prosecution witnesses

No specific role had been assigned to any accused as to who caused the injury to the deceased

Accused later on was apprehended as suspect and thereafter his identification parade was not held immediately on the same day or on the next day

Police kept accused in the Police Station and his identification parade was held jointly after eight days

Accused had remained in jail for more than four years and no one could be confined in jail as punishment

Separate case was registered against accused with regard to recovery of gun under S.13(d) of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 and was challaned in the court, but he stood acquitted in said case

Case of accused, in circumstances, had come within ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused having successfully made out a case of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

SYED SHAFQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J.

The applicant seeks bail in Crime No.185 of 2003, registered under sections 302, 379, 511, 148, 149, P.P.C., with Police Station Ratodero, Larkana. Brief facts of the prosecution cast, in nutshell are that on 12-12-2003, complainant Mohammad Zaman lodged report with Police Station Ratodero, to the effect that on the fateful night he along with his brothers, namely; Ghulam Jan, Mohammad Jan and their cousin Shahzado were present on their lands, where at about midnight time, five persons came there, out of them three were with guns and two were with hatchets, who tried to commit theft of grains from their lands; the complainant party offered them resistances, to which the culprits having guns fired at brother of complainant, namely, Ghulam Jan. The injured Ghulam Jan was taken to hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The complainant then went to Police Station and lodged F.I.R. against five unknown persons. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned State counsel opposed grant of bail. The alleged incident took place on 11-12-2003 at 2330 hours, and F.I.R. was registered on 12-12-2003 at 0900 hours. Complainant has stated in the F.I.R. that there were five unidentified persons, out of them three were armed with guns and two were armed with hatchets. He further stated that he did not identify the culprits at that time. Even in 161, Cr.P.C. statements, the name of the applicant does not transpire. Marks of identification of culprits are neither mentioned in the F.I.R. nor in 161, Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws. No Specific role has been assigned to any accused that who caused the injury to the deceased. Only on 4-1-2004 applicant was apprehended as suspect and after his identification parade was not held immediately on the same day or on the next day. Police kept him in police station from 4-1-2004, upto 12-2-2004, hence identification parade was held after eight days, and it was held jointly. The applicant has remained in jail for more than four years and it is well settled law that no one can be confined in jail as punishment. So far the recovery of gun is concerned, a separate case was registered against the accused under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance, and he was challaned in the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-II, Ratodero, and applicant stands acquitted in the said case vide judgment, dated 20-5-2006. For the above reasons the case of applicant comes within ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The applicant has successfully made out a case of further enquiry, therefore, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000 (Three lacs), and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application and may not influence the mind of trial Court which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to merits of the case. H.B.T./S-70/K Bail granted.