1989 PLP 4646 (MLD)
GHULAM SARWAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4646 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Allahdino G. Memon, J |
| Parties | GHULAM SARWAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4646 (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 1989 PLP 4646 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Allahdino G. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4646 (MLD) (GHULAM SARWAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.363 & 364--Pre-arrest bail, grant of-Victim had made two different statements, one implicating the accused and the other exonerating him--Accused and victim were brothers--Incident appeared to be a family dispute over property--Pre-arrest bail allowed for three weeks to enable accused to approach the Court concerned. Raja Sikandar Khan for Applicant. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Advocate-General Sindh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
It has been contended by Mr. Raja Sikandar learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that the alleged victim Khan Muhammad has made two 164 Cr.P.C statements, first on 27-10-1988 in which he had exonerated the present applicant and co-accused. He has further stated that he had gone to Karachi for treatment whereas in second 164 Cr.P.C. statement made on 26-12-1988 he has implicated the present applicant and co-accused. It was further contended that on the basis of First 164 Cr.P.C. statement the applicant and the co-accused were discharged by the Magistrate on 27-10-1988, therefore, it is a case which requires further inquiry. That the place where the accused is to be taken by police is situated more than 1000 miles away from Karachi, and that the applicant is likely to be maltreated by the police which has come to arrest him. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, learned Advocate-General Sindh appearing for the State has conceded to the grant of protective bail to the applicant, to enable him to approach the Court concerned for grant of bail. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. The copy of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim Khan Muhammad s/o Muhammad Khan recorded on 27-10-1988 shows that he had not implicated the present applicant in the alleged offence of his kidnapping. On the basis of the above 164 Cr.P.C. statement the SHO Police Station Mitha Tiwana had moved an application for discharge of applicant and the co-accused and the learned Magistrate was pleased discharge them. However, again on 26-12-1988 he made another statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. in which he has implicated the present applicant. Since there are two statements of the victim, one exonerating the applicant and other implicating the applicant, and the applicant is real brother of the victim and there appears to be some family dispute over property between the parties, I grant pre -arrest protective bail to the applicant for three weeks on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Nazir of this Court to enable him to approach the Court concerned. SA./G-143/K Bail granted.