2011 PLP 1091 (MLD)
UMED ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1091 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | UMED ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1091 (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 2011 PLP 1091 (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: 2011 PLP 1091 (MLD) (UMED ALI — 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), Ss.302, 365, 452 & 395
Qatl-e-amd, kidnapping, house-trespassing, dacoity
No overt act was attributed to accused
Allegation against accused was that he along with other co-accused had abducted a person with a view to kill him, but no material was available on record to substantiate said allegation
Case against accused being of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.
In this bail application, applicant is booked in Crime No.97 of 2009 registered with P.S.W.J. Shah, under sections 302, 365, 452 & 395, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant says that the only allegation against the applicant is that he was present at the scene, but no overt act has been attributed to the applicant. In the circumstances, learned counsel prays that the applicant be admitted to bail and in support of his contention he relies upon a case of Wariyam v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 161.1), wherein in the similar circumstances, learned Single Judge of this Court had admitted the applicant in the reported case on bail as no role whatsoever was assigned to that accused though he was present at the scene of offence. Learned D.P.-G. says that no doubt no overt act has been attributed to the applicant but he along with other co-accused had abducted Muhammad Arab with a view to kill him but there is no material available on record to substantiate the above contention. In my view it is a case of further enquiry in terms of sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and following the judgment, quoted I above, I admit the applicant to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) and execution of personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Bail application stands disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./U-6/K Bail granted.