2004 PLP 201 (YLR)
DARYA KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 201 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mushir Alam, J |
| Parties | DARYA KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 201 (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 2004 PLP 201 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mushir Alam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 201 (YLR) (DARYA KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑D‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Accused was allegedly apprehended from thickly populated area; but all witnesses were Police Officials and no independent witness from locality was associated while effecting recovery of weapon and other incriminating articles‑‑‑Requirements of S.103, Cr.P.C. were not complied with‑‑ Offence against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑ Accused was granted bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo, Addl. A.‑G.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Bail Application No.391 of 2003, decided on 8th August, 2003. ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑D‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Accused was allegedly apprehended from thickly populated area; but all witnesses were Police Officials and no independent witness from locality was associated while effecting recovery of weapon and other incriminating articles‑‑‑Requirements of S.103, Cr.P.C. were not complied with‑‑ Offence against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑ Accused was granted bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo, Addl. A.‑G. Applicant facing trial in Crime No.96 of 2003 under section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is stated to have been apprehended from thickly- populated area. No compliance with the requirement of section 103, Cr.P.C. was made. All the witnesses are police officials. There is no justification to show that why the independent witnesses were not associated while effecting recovery of the weapon and other incriminating articles. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It is apparently for such reason that the bail was not opposed by the learned Additional A.‑G. Accordingly, the applicant is extended benefit of bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. One hundred thousand and P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./D‑51/K Bail granted.