2007 PLP 1727 (YLR)
SHABBIR HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent-
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1727 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | SHABBIR HUSSAIN — 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 1727 (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 1727 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1727 (YLR) (SHABBIR HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent-). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 353 & 34
Order of Trial Court had reflected that main consideration which prevailed upon it for not allowing concession of bail to accused, appeared to be that accused was habitual offender
Same was the contention of counsel for the State before the High Court
Investigating Officer was directed to appear and disclose as to whether any case was pending against accused, but despite providing opportunity, Investigating Officer had not appeared and counsel for State was also not in a position to disclose the pendency of any other case against accused
Since accused was involved in a case of ineffective firing and that allegation was against co-accused and not accused, accused was entitled to concession of bail. Liaquat Ali Qasim for Applicant. Agha Zafir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.
Through this application applicant/accused Shabbir Hussain seeks bail in Crime No.252 of 2006 of Police Station Kharadar, Karachi registered under sections- 353/324/34, P.P.C. Briefly stated the facts as reflected from the F.I.R. are that a police party while patrolling reached at Marriott Road found two persons in suspicious condition and tried to search them but one of the accused namely Sheeraz started firing with intention to kill. The police party also shot two fires and consequently the accused persons were overpowered and apprehended. One TT pistol with two live bullets two mobile phones and Rs.20 were recovered from accused Sheeraz and one revolver with two live rounds and one Nokia mobile phone were recovered from the present applicant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/accused is involved in an ineffective firing and even ineffective firing has been alleged to co-accused Sheeraz and not to the present applicant and consequently he is entitled to the concession of bail. As to the recovery of TT pistol learned counsel states that a separate case under section 13-D Arms Ordinance is pending adjudication. In the circumstances, learned counsel has prayed that the present case is one of further enquiry and the applicant/accused is entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the grant of bail. The order of the trial Court reflects that the main consideration which prevailed upon it for not allowing the concession of bail appears to be that the applicant is an habitual offender. However, same was the contention by the learned counsel for the State appearing before this Court and consequently on 26-12-2006 Investigating Officer was directed to appear and to disclose as to whether any case is pending against the present applicant. However, despite opportunity, the Investigating Officer has not appeared nor learned counsel for the State is in a position to disclose the pendency of any other case against the present applicant. Since the present applicant is involved in a case of ineffective firing and that allegation is against co-accused and not the present 'applicant. I consider the applicant to be entitled for concession of bail. Consequently, the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs.2 lacs and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S-29/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.