2004 P Cr (PLP)
NAMDAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAMDAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (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 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (NAMDAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/403/147/148
Accused had been alleged causing Lathi blow on the deceased, whereas specific allegation of causing hatchet blow and inflicting blow on head of deceased, had been made against the co-accused
Medical evidence had shown three injuries on the head of deceased
Accused was behind the bars since his arrest while co-accused were at large-- Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Bail is sought by the applicant Namdar son of Pahraz Bangulani, facing trial in Crime No. 125 of 2004, offence under sections 302, 147, 148, 403, 50, P.P.C. Allegation against the present applicant is of causing Lathi blow on .the deceased Ghulam Muhammad. In the F.I.R. specific allegation causing, hatchet blow were made against Yousif, Munshi and Sabzal. Whereas other five accused including present applicant is alleged to have caused Lathi blow on the person of deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the medical report shows that the deceased received three injuries on his head. According to him all the injuries are attributed to the persons who are accused of causing hatchet blow, as alleged. Learned State Counsel urged that conflict in ocular and medical evidence cannot be determined at this bail stage and it can only be collected at trial. Learned State Counsel opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the name of applicant transpires in F.I.R. and overt act has been attributed to him. Having heard the arguments and perused the record from the contents of the F.I.R. it is apparent that specific allegation of causing hatchet blow are made against Yousif, Munshi and Sabzal to have caused and inflicted blow on the head of deceased. Medical evidence apparently shows three injuries, on the head. Though the injury that has been shown as fatal appears to have been caused by the hard and blunt substance and there is possibility that such may be the other side of the hatchet. Applicant appears to have been apprehended on 2-11-2003, and is behind bars since then other, accused persons are still at large. The case as argued by the applicant's counsel makes out a case where in my opinion applicant becomes entitle to claim bail. Accordingly, the applicant is extended benefit of bail. However, subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one hundred thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. In case the applicant misuses the concession of bail, the learned) trial Court may cancel the bail. H.B.T./N-30/K Bail granted.