2007 PLP 214 (MLD)
MEENHAL and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 214 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MEENHAL 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 2007 PLP 214 (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 2007 PLP 214 (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: 2007 PLP 214 (MLD) (MEENHAL and another — Applicants 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 Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram Advocate for the applicants and Mushtaque Ahmed Abbasi, Asstt. A.G. The latter has no objection to the grant of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)
No recovery either of stolen motorcycle or of any weapon, was made from accused despite they remained in custody of police for about 12 days
Such circumstances had militated against reasonableness of grounds put forward by prosecution for believing accused guilty of offence and matter required further inquiry as contemplated by S.497(2), Cr.P.C.
Accused were entitled to grant of bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Heard Messrs Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram Advocate for the applicants and Mushtaque Ahmed Abbasi, Asstt. A.G. The latter has no objection to the grant of bail. The allegation against the applicants is that on 4-8-2006 at 6.30 p.m. they along with absconding accused Hakim robbed complainant Mujahid Ali of his motorcycle on gun point at the bridge of Raj Wah on Jumo village link road. The matter was reported to police after three days i.e. on 7-8-2006 and the explanation that the complainant was trying to recover the motorcycle privately can hardly be treated as plausible. The applicants were arrested on 18-8-2006 and were in the custody of police upto to 1-9-2006 but no recovery either of the stolen motorcycle or of any weapon was made from them. All these circumstances militate against reasonableness of the grounds put forward by the prosecution for A believing the applicants guilty of the offence and the matter requires only further enquiry as contemplated by section 497 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and, therefore, they arc entitled to bail accordingly, the applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing one surety each in the sum of Rs.50,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M-170/K Bail granted.