2010 PLP 489 (YLR)
GHULAM HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 489 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Bhajandas Tejwani, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN — 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 489 (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 2010 PLP 489 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Bhajandas Tejwani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 489 (YLR) (GHULAM 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
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)
Inordinate delay of four months in lodging F.I.R.
In the present case, such offence was committed and the complainant/his nephew were victims of such incident, by which they were deprived of the heavy amount and the complainant should have immediately approached the Police, but he had chosen to involve himself in the negotiations with accused
Lodging of F.I.R. in such circumstances with consultation and false implication could not be ruled out, particularly when no recovery had been effected from the accused
Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Saleem Jessar for Applicant. Ali Raza Pathan, State Counsel.
Judgment & Decree
BHAJANDAS TEJWANI, J.
The allegations against the applicant are that on 2-6-2009, the complainant along with his nephew Amjad Ali went in private car with private driver, the present applicant along with three others robbed cash of Rs.1,52,00 two mobile phones of Nokia Company and identity card on the show of fire-arm weapons. Thereafter, it is alleged by the complainant that he approached the applicant for return of the property who kept the complainant on promises, but on refusal the complainant has chosen to lodge the F.I.R. with delay of four months. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. The F.I.R. has been lodged with full consultation and pre-planning to involve a respectable person in a crime, failing which when the complainant was deprived from heavy amount and such heinous offence as alleged by the complainant has taken place he should have immediately approached the police for action against the culprits involved in the crime. It is further stated by the learned counsel that no recovery of crime weapon or robbed property has been effected from the present applicant. He has placed reliance on case of Maula Box v. The State reported in 2003 PCr.LJ 394, and case of Abdul Ghani v. The State reported in 1986 SCMR 1174. The learned counsel appearing for the State in view of inordinate delay and case law cited by the learned counsel for applicant does not oppose for the grant of the bail. There is inordinate delay of four months in lodging of the F.I.R. In case, such offence was committed and the complainant or his nephew were victims of such incident, by which they were deprived from the heavy amount, then the complainant should have immediately approached the police but he has chosen to involve himself in the negotiations with the accused, therefore, in such circumstances the lodging of the F.I.R. with consultation and false implication cannot be ruled out, particularly, in the circumstances, when no recovery has been effected from the applicant. For the foregoing reasons, this bail application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Two lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction a trial Court. H.B.T./G-38/K Bail granted.