2007 PLP 1024 (MLD)
NIAZ HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1024 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NIAZ HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1024 (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 1024 (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 1024 (MLD) (NIAZ HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
No role whatsoever had been assigned to accused in, F.I.R.
No tainted money was recovered from accused and he was arrested-only on account of his presence along with co-accused
Case of accused being of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.
The applicant Niaz Hussain seeks bail in Crime No.20 of 2006 of police station ACE City Hyderabad' under section 161, 34, P.P.C. read with section 5(ii) Act II of 1947. The facts per F.I.R. appears to be that Complainant Khursheed Ahmed lodged F.I.R. stating therein that Excise police had earlier raided his house and he was taken to the police station where a sum of Rs.40,000 was demanded from him and he was threatened that in case the amount is not paid he will be implicated in drug case. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,000 for his release. Thereafter again a sum of Rs.5000 was demanded by one of the Constables of raiding party viz. Ahtshamul Haque alias Nadeem and since the Complainant did not want to pay therefore, F.I.R. was lodged and consequently a trap was set and the accused Ahtshamul Haque along with the present applicant Niaz Hussain was arrested. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended the name of the present applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. and further the only role assigned to the applicant in the mashirnama of arrest is that he was accompanying the co-accused Ahtshamul Haque. Learned A.A.-G. though opposed the bail, but was not able to bring on record any incriminating material found against the present applicant. Learned A.A.-G. has conceded to the effect that the only allegation against the present applicant is that he was present when raid was conducted along with co-accused Ahtshmaul Haq and he was also present at the time when the earlier amount of Rs.25,000 was paid. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the record as has been placed before me. Since no role whatsoever has been assigned to the present applicant in the F.I.R.; no tainted money was recovered from the applicant and he was arrested only on account of his presence along with co-accused Ahtshamul Haque. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the case of the applicant is of further, inquiry. Consequently, I admit the applicant to bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./N-20/K Bail granted.