2006 PLP 1403 (YLR)
GULSHER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1403 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Soomro and Faisal Arab, JJ |
| Parties | GULSHER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1403 (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 2006 PLP 1403 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Soomro and Faisal Arab, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1403 (YLR) (GULSHER — Applicant 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.365-A, 368, 341, 344, 347 & 148
Accused had been implicated in the case of abduction of two Judges
Alleged abductees were released and after more than 7 months identification parade took place where accused was brought before abductees
Both abductees at the identification parade named accused only as the one from whose house meals were supplied to them
Abductees had categorically stated that he was not the one who participated in the act of their abduction
In view of statement of abductees, common intention of abduction could not be attracted to accused
Identification parade having taken place after 7 months, error of human memory could not be ruled out
Case being of further inquiry in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P.C. accused was enlarged on bail. Asif Ali Soomro and Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The applicant has been implicated in the case of abduction of two learned Judges. The counsel for the applicant has stated that the abductees were released on 28-1-2005 and after more than 7 months i.e. on 17-9-2005 Identification Parade took place where the present applicant was brought before the abductees. Both the abductees at the identification parade named the present applicant only as the one from whose house meals were supplied to them. They categorically stated that he was not the one who participated in the act of their abduction. Counsel for the applicant states that on the basis of the statements of the learned Judges, at this stage, common intention of the abduction cannot be attributed to the applicant. He further states that the identification parade took place after 7 months and error of human memory cannot be ruled out. This Court therefore, finds that it is a case of further inquiry in terms of section 497 (ii), Cr.P.C., therefore, the applicant is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./G-12/K Bail granted.