2006 PLP 1827 (MLD)
KAMRAN AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1827 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KAMRAN AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1827 (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 2006 PLP 1827 (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: 2006 PLP 1827 (MLD) (KAMRAN AHMED — Applicant 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.302
Prosecution was relying upon statements of two eye-witnesses recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., but it was not mentioned in the F.I.R. that said witnesses were present at the scene of offence
Versions of said witnesses were yet to be subjected to cross-examination at the trial
Case being of further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. RABBANI, J.
Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. F.I.R. in this case was lodged by one Arif Hafeez at Shara-e-Faisal Police Station, reporting murder of his brother Tariq Hafeez. The F.I.R. was registered against unknown culprits. The case has been sent up for trial before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East). During the investigation, statement of one Usman Ali was recorded, under section 164, Cr.P.C., who claimed to be eye-witness and he stated that he saw applicant Kamran holding the deceased. The Investigating Officer also got 'recorded statement of one Mst. Chan Zeb, under section 164, Cr.P.C., who also claimed to be eye-witness of the incident. This statement was recorded on 18-10-2001, after more than six months of the incident. Mr. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, counsel for the applicant, submitted that the accused/applicant has not been nominated in the F.I.R. and the statements of alleged eye-witnesses under section 164, Cr.P.C. were recorded after more than six months of the incident and the names of these witnesses were not mentioned in the F.I.R. Mr. M.R. Syed, counsel for the complainant, submitted that there arc two eye-witnesses whose statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. have been recorded and their version of those statements has not been challenged by way of cross-examination. The copies of statements of these witnesses recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. do not mention that they were recorded in presence of the accused/applicant and these statements even do not bear the signatures of the Magistrate. Mr. Fazal-ur-Rahman Awan, State counsel, opposes the bail plea on the ground that two alleged eye-witnesses have implicated the applicant. The prosecution is relying upon the statements of two eye-witnesses mentioned above, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., but it was no mentioned in the F.I.R. that they were present at the scene of offence. These versions are yet to be subjected to cross-examination at the trial. In these circumstances this is a case of further inquiry. The applicant is admitted to bail subject to surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./K-30/K Bail granted.