P L D 2002 Karachi 98 (PLP)
Syed SAEED SHAH‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2002 Karachi 98 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Wahid Bux Brohi, J |
| Parties | Syed SAEED SHAH‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2002 Karachi 98 (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 P L D 2002 Karachi 98 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Wahid Bux Brohi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2002 Karachi 98 (PLP) (Syed SAEED SHAH‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 24th September, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392/397/411‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Bail earlier was granted to the accused by the Judicial Magistrate and the grounds on which bail was granted still existed in favour of the accused and the only changed circumstance was the recovery of golden chain and locket from the almirah placed in the house of the accused‑‑‑Identification of the property was made in the presence of police and not before a Magistrate‑‑ Ornaments were not in exclusive possession of the accused, but had been recovered from almirah lying in his house‑‑‑Offences to that extent would at the most fall within the ambit of S. 411, P. P. C. ‑‑‑Prosecution could be able to establish its case at the trial, but for the time being the guilt of the accused called for further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was entitled to bail in circumstances. M. Noman Khan for Applicant Sharafat Ali Khan, State Counsel for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sharafat Ali Khan, State Counsel for the State. Date of hearing: 24th September, 2001. The case of prosecution, as disclosed in the F.I.R., is that on 20‑10‑2000 complainant Syed Muhammad Gohar was present in his house when at 11.15 a.m. four youngsters, armed with pistols, barged into the house and confined the inmates in one room and then took a search of the house and collected valuables including gold ornaments, watches and cash. They left with the property at 12‑15 noon. The matter was not reported to police but subsequently the complainant saw two of the culprits at different places and then lodged report at Police Station Surjani Town on 1‑11‑2000.
2. At the initial stage learned Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East granted bail to the applicant on the ground that no identification test has, been conducted to establish the identity of the applicant as one of the culprits, no recovery was made from the accused persons and there was 11 days' delay in lodging the F.I.R.; besides, the police had also failed to submit interim charge‑sheet in Court within the statutory period of 17 days, Subsequently, on 24‑2‑2000 challan was submitted by police in the Court against four culprits including applicant for an offence punishable under sections 392/397, P.P.C. The additional evidence collected by police was that on the pointation of applicant gold chain and locket were recovered from an almirah placed in the house of accused/applicant.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that on the same grounds on which bail was allowed to the applicant by the Judicial Magistrate the applicant is entitled to bail. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail on the ground that recovery has been effected from the applicant.
4. Admittedly, the grounds on which bail was granted to the applicant exist in his favour up to this time and the only changed circumstances is the recovery of gold chain and locket. Learned State Counsel admits that identification of the property was made in presence of police and not before Magistrate. Secondly, the ornaments were not in exclusive possession of the applicant but recovered from an almirah lying in the house. Nevertheless, the that extent the offence would, at the most, fall within the ambit on section 411, P.P.C. If by that recovery the applicant is to be booked for the offence of robbery, the learned Judicial Magistrate has already replied the question by holding that no identification test was held. The prosecution may, be able to establish its case at the trial but for the time being the guilt of applicant calls for further inquiry, as such, he is entitled to bail.
5. For the aforesaid reasons the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and executing PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S‑169/K Bail granted