2010 PLP 2176 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD LAIK and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2176 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LAIK and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2176 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 2176 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2176 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD LAIK and another — Applicants 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), S.302(b)/34
Bail, grant of--No specific role of both accused had been shown in the F.I.R. except their presence along with main accused
Recovery of 3 empties of .12 bore, though was shown from possession of accused, but in absence of any specific role and intention to commit any crime, accused could not be held responsible for the offence alleged
Even if case of prosecution about recovery of pistol and 3 cartridges of .12 bore pistol were taken into consideration, then that required proper report of ballistic expert that whether empties recovered from place of incident matched with the pistol recovered from one of accused persons
Accused were released on bail. 2009 SCMR 299 and 1985 SCMR 402 ref.
S.497
Effect
Fugitive from law and courts would lose some of their normal rights granted by procedural and also by substantive law
Unexplained and notice-able abscondence, disentitled a person for concession of bail notwithstanding merits of the case. Sher Muhammad Shar for the Applicants. Manzoor N. Larik for the Complainant. Imtiaz Ali Soomro, Addl. A.A.-G.
Judgment & Decree
MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.
Applicant Muhammad Laik son of Taghial and Taghial son of Nabi Bux have moved this bail application in a case registered in crime No.102/2007. Case of persecution case is that on 11-8-2007 when because of old enmity due to rent amount outstanding against applicant, when complainant along with his father was going on motorcycle they saw both these applicants in company of other accused named in the F.I.R. duly armed with different weapons. According to Abbas Ali after warning Arbab Ali fired direct shot on his father. He died at the spot in presence of Nawaz Ali Shah and Hassan Shah. No specific role of both these applicants have been shown in the F.I.R. except their presence along with main accused Arbab Ali. It is further contended by learned counsel that non recovery of empties from place of incident is sufficient proof that TT Pistol alleged to have been recovered from applicant Laik was not used in commission of offence as no body has also received any injury but this statement of learned counsel do not find support from impugned order showing recovery of 3 empties of .12 bore. Disputing with the finding of rejecting bail application because of abscondence of applicant, learned counsel has referred 2009 SCMR page 299 observing that bail could be granted if the accused has good case for bail and mere abscondence would not come in the way while granting the bail. Whereas learned counsel for the complainant has relied on 1985 SCMR page 402 wherein it is observed that abscondence in proper cases, could be treated as important piece of evidence. Fugitive from law and courts held would loose some of their normal rights granted by procedural and also substantial law. Unexplained and noticeable absecondence dis-entitled a person for concession of bail notwithstanding merits of the case. With due respect to both observations made by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the present case both these applicants were arrested on 12-5-2008. Though recovery is shown from their possession on 12-5-2008 and 14-5-2008 but in absence of any specific role and intention to commit any crime, at this stage they cannot be held responsible for the offence alleged even if the case of prosecution of recovery of pistol and 3 cartridges of .12 bore pistol are taken into consideration then that requires proper report of ballistic expert that whether empties recovered from place of incident matched with the pistol recovered from applicant Taghial on 12-5-2008. In view of foregoing reason both the applicants are allowed to be released on bail subject to solvent surety in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Five lacs) each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-120/K Bail granted.