2007 PLP 2101 (YLR)
AHMED NAWAZ — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2101 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J |
| Parties | AHMED NAWAZ — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2101 (YLR)?
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 2101 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2101 (YLR) (AHMED NAWAZ — Applicant 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 Habibullah G. Ghori, Advocate for the applicant and Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State Counsel. The later has opposed the bail application.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)
Two persons stated before the police after 4 days of the incident that they had also identified accused at the time of incident
Accused was arrested on the basis of their said statement, but neither any weapon nor any stolen property was recovered from accused
Trial Court had refused bail to accused mainly on the ground that there was nothing to show that witnesses had enmity with accused and that such type of street crimes required to be dealt, with iron hands
Absence of enmity was not the only surety about truth of a witness and the courts were. required to go by evidence and do justice according to law and not to be much influenced by the rate of crime which should primarily be the concern of police
Fact that said two persons who were with the complainant at the time of incident, did not claim at that time to have identified accused and made such claim for the first time after 4 days, militated against reasonableness of the ground put forward for believing accused guilty
Matter required only further inquiry as contemplated by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr. P. C. --Accused being entitled, was admitted to bail. Habibullah G. Ghori for Applicant. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Heard Messrs Habibullah G. Ghori, Advocate for the applicant and Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State Counsel. The later has opposed the bail application. According to the prosecution, on 21-3-2006 at about 9-20 p.m. on Warrah Ahmedi Tunio Link Road near house of Raza Muhammad Khwhawar, co-accused Gulbahar Buriro and two unknown persons robbed, on gun-point, complainant Maznoor Ali of his mobile telephone set worth Rs.15,000, a gold necklace worth Rs.10,000 and cash of Rs.8,000, total amounting to Rs.33,000 in presence of his wife's brothers Jehangir and Abdul Karim. The matter was reported to Warrah Police situated at the distance of only one furlong on the same day at 2245 hours. On 25-3-2006 i.e. after 4 days of the incident Jehangir and Abdul Karim stated before police that they had also identified applicant Ahmed Nawaz at the time of incident. On the basis of their such statement he was arrested but neither any weapon nor any stolen property was recovered from him. The trial Court has refused him bail mainly on the ground that there was nothing to show that the witnesses had enmity with him and that such type of street crimes required to be dealt with iron hands. Absence of enmity is not the only surety about truth of a witness and the Courts are required to go by evidence and do justice according to law and not to be much influenced by the rate of the crime which should primarily be the concern of police. The fact that Jehangir and Abdul Karim, who were with the complainant at the time of incident, did not claim, at that time, to have identified the applicant and made such claim for the first time after 4 days militates against the reasonableness of the ground put forward for believing the applicant guilty. The matter requires only further inquiry as contemplated by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the applicant is entitled to bail. He is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-69/K Bail granted.