1989 PLP 657 (MLD)
GHULAM FAREED‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 657 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Imam Ali G. Kazi, J |
| Parties | GHULAM FAREED‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 657 (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 1989 PLP 657 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Imam Ali G. Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 657 (MLD) (GHULAM FAREED‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yousuf for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.6‑‑Bail‑‑Plea that property alleged to have been robbed was of value less than value given under definition of `Nisab' and therefore, offence fell outside scope of provision of Ordinance VI of 1979‑‑No specific part had been assigned to any of accused‑‑Grounds urged not impressive for purpose of granting bail‑ Held, during trial accused succeeded in pointing out that offence was beyond scope of Ordinance, provisions made in S.24 of Ordinance would take care of situation and accused could then be tried under any other law applicable in the case‑‑Offence was allegedly committed by three accused jointly rendering each one liable. to punishment for their commission‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Zahir Qureshi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Yousuf for Petitioner. Zahir Qureshi for the State. The facts giving rise to the present application are that on 20‑9‑1988 the applicant alongwith his companions engaged a taxi from the Super Market at Clifton for going to Karsaz. They reached P.N.S.' Karsaz near Officers Flats at about mid‑night when they confronted the taxi driver at the point of dagger, threatened him to stop and hand over whatever he had under the threat of killing him. One of them took Rs.300 and the identity card of the driver from the pocket of his shirt and snatched his wrist‑watch. All the three persons came out of the taxi and ran towards the bushes. On the alarm raised by the taxi driver Naval Guards and other persons nearby chased the applicant and his companions and were caught by them. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged at Shrae‑Faisal Police Station. The case is pending trial in the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) and it has not yet proceeded. The applicant after being unsuccessful before the trial Court has filed the present application requesting for bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged the following grounds in support of the bail application. (a) That as the property alleged to have been g robbed is of the value less than the value given under the definition of `Nisab' offence falls outside the scope of the provision made in the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. (b) No specific part has been assigned to any of the accused in the case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the grant of bail as all the accused were caught red handed. According to him there has been increase in such incidents that need to be dealt with strictly. Both the grounds urged by the Advocate for the applicant have not impressed me for the purpose of granting him bail. In case if during the trial the applicant succeeds in pointing out that offence is beyond the scope of the Ordinance provision made in its section 24 will take care of the situation and the applicant can then be tried under any other law applicable in the case. The offence in this case is alleged to have been committed by three accused persons jointly rendering each one liable to punishment for their commission. In view of the above the bail application is rejected. It will however, be open to the applicant to repeat his application after the complainant has been examined in the case. The trial Judge will expedite the disposal of this case. M.Y.H./G‑101/K Bail refused.