2004 PLP 413 (MLD)
ABDUL HAMEED SOOMRO‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 413 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Zahid Kurban Alvi, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED SOOMRO‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 413 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 413 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Zahid Kurban Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 413 (MLD) (ABDUL HAMEED SOOMRO‑‑‑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)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.170/171/468/471‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Five unknown persons on the show of force of weapons had allegedly snatched a pick‑up‑‑‑Complainant had identified the accused in the identification test held after nine days of his arrest, which according to counsel for the accused on account of such delay could not form the basis of attribution of the crime to him‑‑ Sessions. Court, while dismissing the bail application, had observed that the accused had been arrested on suspicion, but had been identified in the identification parade although there were no independent witnesses‑‑ Case against accused required further inquiry in circumstances and he was admitted to bail accordingly. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant. Ghulam Shabbeer Shar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.170/171/468/471‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Five unknown persons on the show of force of weapons had allegedly snatched a pick‑up‑‑‑Complainant had identified the accused in the identification test held after nine days of his arrest, which according to counsel for the accused on account of such delay could not form the basis of attribution of the crime to him‑‑ Sessions. Court, while dismissing the bail application, had observed that the accused had been arrested on suspicion, but had been identified in the identification parade although there were no independent witnesses‑‑ Case against accused required further inquiry in circumstances and he was admitted to bail accordingly. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant. Ghulam Shabbeer Shar for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed this bail application in connection with Crime No.26 of 2003 registered at Police Station, Tando Masti Khan. It seems that the incident occurred on 14‑4‑2003. According to the F.I.R. five unknown persons on the show of force of weapons snatched a Pick‑up. However, in the F.I.R. the complainant states that he would be in a position to recognize the accused if shown. The present accused was arrested on 8‑5‑2003 and the identification test took place on 17‑5‑2003, according to the counsel for the, applicant such a delay in identification test cannot form the basis of attributing the crime to the accused. The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur whilst passing the order on the bail application on 4‑9‑2003 has observed that the accused were arrested on suspicion but because they were identified even though there were no independent witnesses, therefore, the bail application is dismissed. I am however of the opinion that in the present juncture, it is a case of further enquiry. Bail is accordingly granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two hundred thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court. N.H.Q./A‑1/K Bail allowed.