1989 PLP 260 (SCMR)
RASHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 260 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, IJ |
| Parties | RASHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 260 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 260 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, IJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 260 (SCMR) (RASHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qarni, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th September, 1988.
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qarni, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 11-8-1988 passed in Cr. Bail Application No. 843 of 1988).
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/353--Bail--Nothing available on record to show that Police or complainant had any enmity with accused--Accused had fired at police party and was arrested with Kala0shankov at odd hours of night--Bail refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 7th September, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner charged for an offence of ineffective firing by a Klashankov under sections 307 and 353, P.P.C and refused bail by the two Courts, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment/order of the High Court of Sind dated 11‑8‑1988. At midnight on 16th/17th July, 1988, the petitioner allegedly fired at a Police Party alongwith a companion who managed to escape. After some pursuit the petitioner was apprehended with Klashankov. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge is of ineffective firing and it is also open to question whether Klashankov was at all possessed by the petitioner and was not the one thrown by his absconding companion. According to the learned counsel all these factors eminently entitled the petitioner to bail. While rejecting the Application for Bail in the matter the High Court observed as follows:‑‑ "There is nothing on record to show that Police Party including complainant had any enmity with the applicant. According to the prosecution the applicant had fired at the Police Party and was arrested with Klashankov at odd hours of the night. The incident is a very recent incident and the offence is a heinous one. In view of the above reasons I am of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage and the application is accordingly dismissed. However, the applicant will be entitled to repeat his bail application before the learned trial Judge after the complainant and two eye‑witnesses are examined." The reasons given by the High Court justifiably disentitle the Petitioner to bail at this stage, and in such a case. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.Y.H./R‑64/S Leave to appeal refused.