2008 PLP 1661 (MLD)
KHALID and 3 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1661 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALID and 3 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1661 (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 2008 PLP 1661 (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: 2008 PLP 1661 (MLD) (KHALID and 3 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.436
Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Only allegation against accused persons was that the fire took place at their instance
Contentions of counsel for accused persons were that F.I.R. was delayed by five hours without any plausible explanation and that accused were not available at the scene of offence at the relevant time
State Counsel while not disputing said factual aspects of the case, had conceded that interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused persons be confirmed and further submitted that the main accused had already been enlarged on bail
Two eye-witnesses whose names appeared in the F.I.R. had also not supported the prosecution case--Accused persons, having made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail already granted to them, same was confirmed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM RABBANI, J.
Allegations as per F.I.R., lodged on 13-2-2004 at 2100 hours is that on the said date at about 1530 hours co-accused Leemo by caste Charan and two unknown persons of whom one was armed with pistol and another was holding a can of kerosene oil entered into house of complainant Arbab, sprinkled the kerosene in southern side room of the house, thereafter co-accused Leemo set the articles in said room on fire. It is stated that under the order of Sessions Judge routed through 2nd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Dadu challan was submitted placing the present applicants in Column No.2. Contentions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the F.I.R. is delayed by five hours without any plausible explanation, the applicants were not available at the scene of offence at the time of offence, the only allegation against the present applicants is that fire took place at their instance. Learned Sessions Judge issued N.B.Ws. against the applicant wrongly treating them absconders. Moreso, without declaring them so under section 87, Cr.P.C. though in the challan they were shown innocent and the Investigating Officer had requested for disposal of the case under "C" Class. Further that two of the applicants are blind and have no worldly interests. Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar while not disputing the factual aspect of the case as stated above conceded that the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicant be confirmed. He submitted that the main accused Leemo has already been enlarged on bail. The two eye-witnesses whose names appear in the F.I.R. have also not supported the prosecution case. I have given my due attention to the arguments of both the learned counsel and keeping in view the above facts and circumstances I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail already granted to them by my learned brother Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, in the circumstances, I, therefore, confirm the interim-pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 12-4-2004. This application stands disposed of accordingly. H.B.T/K-24/K Bail confirmed.