2007 PLP 830 (YLR)
KHATTAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 830 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munib Ahmed Khan, J |
| Parties | KHATTAN — 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 830 (YLR)?
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 830 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Munib Ahmed Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 830 (YLR) (KHATTAN — 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.324, 336, 353, 147, 148 & 149
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, (VI of 1979), S.17(3)
Delay in lodging F.I.R. and no recovery had been effected, despite allegation of involvement of several armed persons
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than three years and recording of evidence had not started
Rule of consistency was also applicable keeping in view the bail granted to two co- accused
Accused, in circumstances, was entitled to bail. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant. Muhammad Saleem Jessar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.
This application has already become infructuous, therefore, dismissed.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. No.30 of 2002 of Police Station Bahoo Khoso is almost a blind F.I.R. as wild allegations have been levelled against the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to them. He has further submitted that no recovery has been effected from any accused and that it is impossible for the police officials to identify the accused persons from a distance of one Kilometer as has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Nor with the distance they could identify arms and ammunition. He has further submitted that alleged incident occurred at 0930 hours but report has been made at 1530 hours i.e., after considerable delay which is not expected from the police officials. He further submitted that co-accused in the F.I.R., namely, Illahi Bakhsh alias Bhallo and Shah Jehan have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.517 of 2005 as the learned State Counsel gave no objection in that case. He argued that rule of consistency, in the circumstances, may be applied as the case of the applicant is similar to that of the accused who have been granted bail. He further submits that principle of hardship is also attracted as the accused is behind the bars for the last three years, as the applicant was arrested on 23-12-2003. The learned State counsel has no objection on the ground that applicant may be granted bail on the basis of rule of consistency and that the delay was there. After hearing I have observed that it is strange as to how the police has identified numerous persons while they were at police encounter and that too from a distance and further the arms have also been identified, which is not an easy job from a distance. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. is also there. It may also be noted down that no recovery has been effected in spite the allegation of involvement of several armed persons and that the accused is behind the bars for the last more than three years and the evidence has not started as yet. The rule of consistency is also applicable keeping in view the bail granted by this Court to two accused Illahi Bakhsh and Shah Jehan. In the circumstances, the accused is also admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P. R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./K-1/K Bail granted.