2006 PLP 1856 (MLD)
Haji ISMAIL and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1856 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji ISMAIL and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1856 (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 2006 PLP 1856 (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: 2006 PLP 1856 (MLD) (Haji ISMAIL and another — Applicants 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), Ss.353, 324, 224, 225-B & 337-A(i)
F.I.R. showed that on the day of incident, accused persons had gone to the Court premises where they had met two persons who had escaped from the police custody; further allegation against accused persons was that they stood in front and grappled with the police party
No details had been provided against accused persons about the manner they had facilitated the said two persons in escaping from the police custody
In absence of any specific allegation with regard to the manner in which accused persons had facilitated the escape, their role in the commission of alleged offence, was to be decided at the trial stage
Accused persons had made out a case of further inquiry into their guilt and it could not be said that any reasonable ground existed to believe that they had committed an offence falling under prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.
The applicants are facing trial in Crime No.65 of 2006 of Police Station Mehar under sections 353, 384, 224, 22-B, 337-A(i) P.P.C. The allegations against the applicants are that on the day of incident when two prisoners Abid Hussain and Anwar Khoso escaped from the police custody they visited them and stood in front and grappled with the police party and in the meanwhile the two accused boarded on two motorcycles and fled away. The applicants have filed bail application in the trial Court who has dismissed the same on the ground that the bare reading of the F.I.R. shows that the names of the applicants with specific role of facilitating the prisoners who escaped from the lawful custody of police, is attributed to them, who were required in heinous nature of the case and also deterred the police from the discharge of their official .duties. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in the F.I.R. there is no specific allegation against the applicant that they have facilitated the accused persons from escaping from the police custody. He further submits that mere presence of the applicant at the place of Wardat does not disentitle him from the concession of bail as their role in the commission of the offence has yet to be decided and they ,have not committed any offence failing under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Learned State counsel has conceded the bail on the ground that in the F.I.R. no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before me. In the F.I.R. it has been stated that on the day of incident the two applicants have gone to the Court premises and have met two accused persons who were escaped from the police custody. The further allegation is that they stood in front and grappled with the police party. No allegation has been made against the applicants that in what manner they have facilitated the accused in escaping from the police custody. In absence of any specific allegation with regard to the manner in which the applicants have facilitated the escape of the accused persons, the role of the applicants in the commission of the offence is to be decided at the trial stage. In view of this, the applicants have made out a case of further inquiry into their guilt and it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. I therefore, allow this bail application and the applicants be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court: H.B.T./I-17/K Bail granted.