1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALI‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdur Rehman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALI‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdur Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALI‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑
S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss. 15 & 17(1)‑‑Bail‑‑Offence of Haraabah‑‑Nowhere in first information report accused alleged to have taken away or attempted to take or even had any intention of taking away any property of complainant‑‑Not even least imputation of theft or attempt for committing theft made against accused‑‑Provisions of S. 17(1) of Ordinance, 197.9 not attracted‑‑Bail granted. Nibhando Khan for Applicant. S. Sarfraz Ahmed, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nibhando Khan for Applicant. S. Sarfraz Ahmed, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. On 26‑8‑1985 at 1 a.m. the complainant and his uncle Hadi Bux were sleeping on their lands by the side of their cattle which were tethered in Vathan when applicant Iqbal and one unknown person passed from there. On the challenge of complainant Iqbal abused and gave Lathi blow on the head of the complainant while unidentified person gave Lathi blow on the arm and face of Hadi Bux. Bail application was initially moved before the learned Sessions Judge Hyderabad (Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo) who dismissed the same. In his order he conceded that no offence under section 307, P.P.C. was made out as there was no motive to kill anybody. He, however, observed that the offence would fall under section 17(1) of the Offences Against the Property. (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (although no such section was applied in the F.I.R.) and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to bail. I do not find any justification in this observation of the learned Sessions Judge. According to section 15 of the Ordinance Haraabah has been defined as under:‑ "When any one or more persons, whether equipped with arms or not, make show of force for the purpose of taking away the property of another and attack him or cause wrongful restraint or put him in fear of death or, hurt, such person or persons are said to commit Haraabah:" Nowhere in the F.I.R. it has been alleged that the culprits had taken away or attempted to take or even had any intention of taking away the bullocks or any other property of the complainant. It cannot be implied from the circumstances of the case that they had made any A such attempt. All that has been said is that two persons were going towards southern side at 1‑00 a.m. Hence it would appear that not even the least imputation of theft or attempt for committing theft has made against the applicant. Hence the provisions of section 17(1) cannot be imported into this case by any stretch of argument. I, therefore, feel that the bail has been improperly refused by the learned Sessions Judge. I, therefore, order that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnising surety and P.R. in the sum of Rs.10,000 to the satisfaction of trial Court. M. Y. H. Bail granted.