2009 PLP 1291 (YLR)
ASHIQUE HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1291 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Maqbool Ahmed Awan, J |
| Parties | ASHIQUE HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1291 (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 2009 PLP 1291 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Maqbool Ahmed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1291 (YLR) (ASHIQUE 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
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-F(i), 504 & 506
Bail, grant of--Incident was said to have taken place in a thickly populated area i.e. the petrol pump, but no independent witness had been cited to corroborate the version of the complainant
If there was any intention of committing murder of complainant on the part of accused, he should have fired upon him instead of giving him butt blows
F.I.R., showed that ,complainant had not appeared before the Medical Officer for medical examination and no such certificate was available on the record
Enmity existed between the parties and in view of the fact that punishment did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. and accused having made out a case for grant of bail, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Tariq , Bash4r v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 rel. Basharat Ahmed Jatt for Applicant. Muhammad Aslam Sipio for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MAQBOOL AHMED AWAN, J.
The applicant seeks bail in case/Crime No.71 of 2008 under sections 337-F(i), 504, 506/2, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sanghar. As per F.I.R, the only allegation against the applicant/accused is that he caused butt blows of the pistol on the person of complainant who is witness in the case against accused persons. The bail application on behalf of applicant/accused was filed before the learned trial Court and thereafter, the same was repeated in the Court of learned Sessions Judge and both the bail applications were dismissed. Hence the applicant approached this Court for grant of bail. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused has argued that case is false and complainant had lodged this false case with ulterior motive and mala fide intention to see the applicant behind the bars. He has further argued that no independent person has been cited as a witness by the complainant whereas the incident had taken place in a thickly populated area. He has also argued that story advanced by the complainant is appearing to be unnatural, unbelievable and requires serious consideration at the time of trial. He has lastly argued that punishment of the offence with which the applicant/ accused is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He has relied upon the judgment of Tariq Bashir v. The State reported in PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34 and requests that applicant is no more required for investi gation and he is in custody since 8-8-2008 and the case has been challened. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that name of the applicant is appearing in the F.I.R. and that applicant had extended threats of murder, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail. I have given consideration to' the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for applicant so also for state and perused the material available on record. The incident is said to have taken place in a thickly-populated area i.e. the petrol pump but no independent witness has been cited here to corroborate the version of the complainant. The complainant is witness against the accused and if there was any intention of committing murder on the part of accused, he should have fired upon the complainant except of chosen to cause butt blows to the complainant. From the perusal of F.I.R., it appears that complainant has not appeared before the Medical Officer for medical examination and no such certificate is available on the record. The enmity existed between the parties and in view of the fact that punishment is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the dictum laid down by the apex Court in the case of Tarique Bashir v. The State reported in PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Resultantly, the applicant is granted bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-55/K Bail granted.