2010 PLP 1631 (MLD)
ABDUL RAHEEM-Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1631 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL RAHEEM-Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1631 (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 2010 PLP 1631 (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: 2010 PLP 1631 (MLD) (ABDUL RAHEEM-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.324, 353, 427, 148 & 149
Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault and mischief
Counsel for accused had argued that as per prosecution story encounter had taken place between accused and Police party and that no injury whatsoever had been caused to any one
Counsel had stated that Police had implicated accused due to old enmity which had flashed in the newspapers; that case did not fall under S.497, Cr.P.C. and that it was a case of further enquiry as it was yet to be decided as to whether accused was present at the scene or had fired upon the Police party
Additional Prosecutor-General had admitted the position that no injury had been caused, however, bullet marks could be found on the Police Van and that it was case of further enquiry
Prosecution had not seriously opposed the bail application
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.
This criminal bail application arises against the order dated 3-6-2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur in Criminal Bail Application No.546 of 2010. The applicants are involved in Crime No. 90 of 2010 at Police Station Tando Masti District Khairpur under sections 324, 353, 427, 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that as per prosecution story encounter had taken place between the present applicant and police party. He says that no injury whatsoever has been caused to any one. He says that police has implicated present applicant due to old enmity which has flashed in the newspaper. He further argued that this is a case of further enquiry as it is yet to be decided as to whether the present applicant was present at the scene or had fired upon police party. He also submits that case does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and his case is of further inquiry and applicant be enlarged on bail as prayed for.
3. Learned APG has stated that it is admitted position that no injury has been caused. However; bullet marks could be found on the police van; he also submits that it is case of further enquiry. Leaned APG has not seriously opposed the bail application.
4. In the circumstances, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of his solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (One Hundred thousand Only) and on execution of personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Application stands disposed of. H.B.T./A-73/K Bail granted.