2007 PLP 200 (MLD)
FIDA HUSSAIN and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 200 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FIDA HUSSAIN and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 200 (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 2007 PLP 200 (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: 2007 PLP 200 (MLD) (FIDA HUSSAIN and another — 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), Ss.380, 411 & 457
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14
Accused neither were apprehended on the spot, nor stolen property/livestock, was recovered from their possession
Possibility of their false implication, could not be straightaway ruled out
Offence alleged against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause as contained under S.497,Cr.P.C.
Accused were entitled to concession of bail, in circumstances
Interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MOSA K. LEGHARI, J.
Bail plea has been pressed on the grounds that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case, the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibition contained under section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the prosecution has been motivated and acting maliciously. Learned State Counsel submits that since the allegations are against co-accused Nazroo, the case of the applicants requires further inquiry as such, he has no objection. It appears that neither the applicants were apprehended on the spot, nor the stolen property viz. livestock were recovered from their possession. Possibility of false implication cannot be straightaway ruled out. The offence alleged does not fall within prohibitory clause as contained under section 497, Cr.P.C., thus the applicants are enoded 10 the concession of bail. In view of the above circumstances, 'interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. H.B.T./F-21/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail confirmed.