2000 P Cr (PLP)
BALOO alias PIYAR ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BALOO alias PIYAR ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (BALOO alias PIYAR ALI — 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), S.365-A
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI bf 1979), S.17(3)
Bail-- Contentions were that since some of the co-accused in the case had already been acquitted and others had been enlarged on bail, accused was entitled to bail on the principle of rule of consistency and also for the reasons that the accused was neither nominated in the F.I.R. nor any identification test was held after his arrest, as such his case required further inquiry
Prosecution had not controverted the said contentions and acceded to the grant of bail to accused
Long abscondence of accused could be ignored where his case needed further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
Applicant seeks bail in Crime No.68 of 1992 of Mehar lodged under section 365-A, P.P.C. and section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Precisely the facts of the case of prosecution are that on 6-5-1992 at about 12-30 night complainant and other inmates woke up on the noise of the door and saw 11-12 persons armed with kalashnikovs, rifles and guns standing in the courtyard. They took up licensed gun of complainant and robbed cash of Rs.5,000, golden ornaments valuing Rs.10,
800. Thereafter they forcibly dragged Manzoor Hussain the nephew of complainant and took away him with themselves. In the morning complainant party tracked the foot-prints which was up to Pairo Protective Bund. They started search privately but could not get clue and ultimately lodged the F.I.R. on 15-9-1992. It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro that in this case accused Nazeer, Hubdar, Badar alias Dhamako, Shahnawaz, Mehar Ali and Ahmed Ali were challaned and had been acquitted by the trial Court. According to him applicant was absconder. Irrespective of the applicant co- accused Allah Bux and Ali Hassan the absconders were arrested, out of them Allah Bux and Ali Hassan have been granted bail He further argues that since some of the co-accused have 'been acquitted and others have been enlarged on bail as such the case of applicant is on identical footings with others and the applicant is entitled to 'tie giant of bail on the principle of rule of consistency. He lastly contended that the applicant was neither nominated in the F.I.R. nor any identification test was held after his arrest, as such his case requires further inquiry. In support he relies upon 1985 SCMR 382 and 1989 PCr.LJ 1910. Honourable Supreme. Court in the case of Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul and others reported in 1985 SCMR 382 has 'laid the dictum that long abscondance can be ignored under certain .conditions. One of the same being the case of further inquiry. Applying the above dictum to the case of applicant we feel that he is entitled to the grant of bail. On the other side Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto does not controvert the arguments and raises no objection to the grant of bail. Accordingly we allow bail to the applicant who shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.Q./B-9/K Bail allowed.