2009 PLP 611 (MLD)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 611 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 611 (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 2009 PLP 611 (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: 2009 PLP 611 (MLD) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro Special Addl. Prosecutor General for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Accused was not entitled to bail on the ground of consistency as co-accused who was granted bail by the High Court was not named in the F.I.R., whereas accused had been named in the F.I.R.
Even though complainant had not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution, so also the prosecution witness, but initial version of the case could not be wiped off where the F.I.R. was lodged immediately on the day of the occurrence; and the weapon being the hatchet was recovered from accused having allegedly caused multiple injuries in a brutal double murder
Material witnesses had yet to be examined and sufficient material was on record to connect accused with the offence, he was not entitled to the concession of bail even though he had been in custody since long.
Judgment & Decree
SALMAN ANSARI, J.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Nazar Muhammad whose bail application was rejected by the Order, dated 3-3-2008 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Malir on the ground that "There are sufficient material available on record to connect the accused/applicant with the offence, which is punishable to death or imprisonment for life." Hence this bail application. The grounds agitated are that two eye-witnesses being the complainant Deedar Hussain and Abdul Razzak have not supported the prosecution's version of the case and had been declared hostile, co-accused Haji Abdur Rehman has been granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court, on the principle of consistency the applicant is entitled to bail, the applicant is in custody since the time of his arrest on 2-7-2004 and the trial has not concluded, the case requires further inquiry, hence bail be allowed. The learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the grounds that two witnesses Adam and Ameen had fully implicated the accused in their sections 161, Cr.P.C. and 164, Cr.P.C. statements, the complainant being a jobless person has been won over and also P.W. Abdul Razzak, the applicant has been charged with committing a double murder he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Heard arguments, perused the record and the case file, primarily the applicant is not entitled to bail on the ground of consistency as the co-accused Haji Abdul Redman granted bail by the High Court was not named in the F.I.R., the applicant hrs been named in the F.I.R even though the complainant Deedar Hussain had not supported the prosecution case as given and was declared hostile by the prosecution so also P.W. Abdul Razzed yet the initial version of the case cannot be wiped out where the F.I.R. was lodged immediately on the day of the occurrence and the weapon being the hatchet was recovered from the applicant/accused having allegedly caused multiple injuries in a brutal double murder, hence as material witnesses have yet to be examined and there is sufficient material on record to connect the accused Muhammad Nazar with this offence, in my opinion even though the accused has been in custody since the time of his arrest, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. This bail application stands rejected accordingly. H.B.T./N-50/K Bail refused.