1998 PLP 1549 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASIF — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1549 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASIF — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1549 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1549 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1549 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASIF — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Heard Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Agha Zafar Ali for the State. The F.I.R. in this case was registered on 15-1-1997 for offence under section 17(3) Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance. The learned advocate for the applicant has requested for bail on the ground that the only piece of evidence against the applicant is that his name was disclosed by co-accused. After his arrest he was not subjected to identifications as is required under the law.
- The lower Court rejected the bail application because P.W. Muhammad Yasin identified the applicant. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that there has been no identification parade as is required under the law and, therefore, identification by P.W. Mohammad Yasin at the police station is against the requirement of law. The learned State counsel has conceded to this legal position. So if we omit this piece of evidence there is the fact that the name of applicant was disclosed by co-accused. This piece of evidence will have to be examined in the light of provision of Qanoon-e-Shahadat. The learned Advocate for the applicant has relied on decisions reported in PLD 1996 Karachi page 534 and PLD 1991 FSC page. 53. Their Lordship of Federal Shariat Court in paragraph 10 of the Judgment have ruled as under:--
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(3)
Only evidence against accused was that his name was disclosed by co-accused and accused after his arrest was not subjected to identification as was required under the law
Accused, in circumstances, was entitled to grant of bail.
Judgment & Decree
Mahmood A. Qureshi for Applicant. Agha Zafar Ali for the State. Heard Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Agha Zafar Ali for the State. The F.I.R. in this case was registered on 15-1-1997 for offence under section 17(3) Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance. The learned advocate for the applicant has requested for bail on the ground that the only piece of evidence against the applicant is that his name was disclosed by co-accused. After his arrest he was not subjected to identifications as is required under the law. The learned State counsel concedes that after the arrest of applicant there has been no identification but the accused was identified by P.W. Muhammad Yasin. The learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central in his order dated 6-3-1997 has mentioned as under:-- "The perusal of file shows that name of the applicant/accused was disclosed to the complainant and eye-witness by co-accused Rizwan Ahmed, who was arrested on the spot, hence the name - of applicant/accused is mentioned in the F.I.R. Besides that the Mashirnama of arrest shows that applicant/accused was arrested on the basis of identification by P.W. Muhammad Yasin who is eye-witness of the incident." The lower Court rejected the bail application because P.W. Muhammad Yasin identified the applicant. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that there has been no identification parade as is required under the law and, therefore, identification by P.W. Mohammad Yasin at the police station is against the requirement of law. The learned State counsel has conceded to this legal position. So if we omit this piece of evidence there is the fact that the name of applicant was disclosed by co-accused. This piece of evidence will have to be examined in the light of provision of Qanoon-e-Shahadat. The learned Advocate for the applicant has relied on decisions reported in PLD 1996 Karachi page 534 and PLD 1991 FSC page.
53. Their Lordship of Federal Shariat Court in paragraph 10 of the Judgment have ruled as under:-- "
10. In Islamic Criminal Law, the confession of an accused against the co-accused is not acceptable and if there is no other proof against him. he will not be punished on the said confession." This being the position of law, I grant bail to the applicant subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./M-229/K Bail granted.