2012 PLP 1191 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 4 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1191 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Salman Hamid, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 4 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1191 (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 2012 PLP 1191 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Salman Hamid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1191 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 4 others — Applicants 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/ 341/ 353/ 337-A(i)/ 435/ 440/ 147/ 148/149/109
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7
Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, wrongful restraint, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, shajjah-i-khafifah, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, acts of terrorism
Allegation against accused persons of forming a mob and resorting to vandalism while protesting for the release of some criminals
Contentions of accused persons were that other accused persons nominated in a different F.I.R., which emanated from the present F.I.R., had been released on bail; that neither any specific role was assigned to them nor any weapons had been recovered from them, and that prosecution had no medical evidence to connect the accused persons with the crime
Allegations against accused persons were general in nature and no recovery of weapons had been made from them
No medical report had come on record
Prosecution did not contest the grounds raised by the accused in the present bail application
Case under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. had been made out and accused persons were enlarged on bail. Amjad Ali for Applicants. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Addl. Prosecutor-General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALMAN HAMID, J.
Muhammad Siddique, Altaf Hussain, Attaullah, Muhammad Allayas and Gul Hassan, (the applicants) were booked for offences punishable under sections 324, 353, 440, 337A(i), 47, 148, 149 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Codes and 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act at Police Station Shahdadpur in F.I.R. No. 67 of 2011 and in F.I.R. No.68 of 2011 for offences punishable under sections 324, 353, 435, 440, 147, 148, 149, 337A(i), 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code and 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act at Police Station Shahdadpur. Allegations deducible from the F.I.R. were that Khudad Brohi, Amir Bux Brohi and Nazir Ahmed Brohi had been alluded for keeping weapons illegally and for interference in the official government work and upon their arrest, (F.I.R. No.61 of 2011) a horde duly armed with assorted weapons protested for release of such accused/criminals and to attain such purpose, the mob resorted to vandalism. The present accused as per contents of F.I.R. had been arrested as a result of this happening.
2. The learned counsel for the applicants mainly argued on the point of consistency by bringing up that a Division Bench of this court in other bail applications, (761 of 2011 and 762 of 2011 Shaukat Ali and others v. State dated 11-7-2011 order passed separately) which emanated from the present F.I.R. enlarged the accused therein on bail. Additionally the learned counsel also argued that no specific role is assigned to the applicants nor any weapon was recovered from them. Medical evidence connecting the applicants was also not at hand with the prosecution.
3. Learned Additional P.G. looking to the above facet of the matter did not contest the application and gave in.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and have also looked into the file. Bare perusal of the F.I.R. would show that the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the applicants prima facie carry weight inasmuch as that the allegations are general in nature; and that no recovery of the weapons was made from the applicants; and, that till date medical report has not come on record. These grounds, coupled with the consent of the learned Additional P.G. seemingly shows that a case under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. has been made out, and the bail applications are allowed. The applicants are therefore enlarged on bail, subject, however, to their furnishing solvent surety in an amount of Rs.100,000 each and PR bond of the same fashion to the satisfaction of the trial court.
5. Needless to mention that the result of this shall not affect the decision of the trial which would be independent of these. M.W.A./M-19/K Bail granted.