2005 PLP 169 (YLR)
MITHO and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 169 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J |
| Parties | MITHO and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 169 (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 2005 PLP 169 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 169 (YLR) (MITHO 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(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 337-A (i), (ii)
According to Medical Certificate one of the injured had received three injuries which had been certified as being under S. 337-A (i), P. P. C. punishable with two years R.I.
Injury suffered by other injured had been certified as being under S. 337-A (ii), P. P. C. punishable with five years R.I.
Both punishments did not fall within prohibitory clause of 5.497, Cr. P. C.
No particular role had been given to any accused as to which of them had inflicted injuries on injured as only a sweeping statement had been made that all of them hit injured with their weapons-- Case of accused was one of further inquiry
Accused had passed fifteen months in jail and still charge had not been framed by Trial Court
Accused was enlarged on bail in circumstances. Noor Ahmed Memon for Applicants. Anwar H. Ansari for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Noor Ahmed Memon for Applicants. Anwar H. Ansari for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants says that per the F.I.R., applicant/ accused Mitho was armed with a pistol whereas Zawar was armed with a hatchet, Misri with a Lathi, Umlakh alias Muloon and Teka both were armed with pistols, but no role has been given to any of the accused as to who caused the injuries to the inmates of the house viz. Shirimati Sharma and Arjan. Secondly, per learned counsel, no recovery has been made from the applicants Mitho and Zawar. Finally, learned counsel says that in the 161, Cr.P.C. statement of the P.Ws. it is mentioned that injured Sharma grappled with the accused, which is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and so also the punishment is only a short and does not come within the prohibitory clause. Learned State Counsel has not opposed the bail mainly on the ground that no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused, hence at the moment it could be a question of further inquiry as to which of the accused inflicted the injuries at Sharma and Arjan. I have heard both the learned counsel. It would be seen per the medical certificate of Arjan, he has received three injuries, which have been certified as being under section 337-A(i), P. P. C. and punishable with two years R.I. whereas the injury suffered by Mst. Sharma has been certified as being under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. punishable with up to 5 years and A hence both the punishments do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Secondly, it would also be seen that no role has been given to any of the accused as to which of them inflicted the injuries on the injured. In fact a sweeping statement has been made that all of them hit the injured with their weapons. Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances, in my opinion the applicants case is one of further enquiry. So also it would be seen that they have passed 15 months in jail according to the report of, g the trial Court not even the charge has been framed. I would thus enlarge the applicants on bail subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each along with P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-153/K Bail granted.