2013 PLP 1745 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1745 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Aftab Ahmad Gorar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1745 (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 2013 PLP 1745 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Aftab Ahmad Gorar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1745 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5
Attempt to cause explosion or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances
Association of police witnesses during recovery proceedings
Scope
Two rocket missiles were allegedly recovered by police on the pointation of accused
No enmity was shown with police to establish that accused had been falsely implicated in the present case by foisting the recovered rocket missiles on him
Although independent witnesses were not associated during recovery proceedings, but in cases similar to present one, independent witnesses were not ready to act as witnesses, therefore, police witnesses were as good as independent witnesses
Bail application of accused was dismissed in circumstances. Bismillah Khan v. The State 2004 MLD 224; Zain-ul-Abidin v. The State 2010 MLD 173; Shama Khel and 2 others v. Yousuf Ali Khan and another 2008 YLR 1888; Gul Hassan alias Nadeem v. The State 2004 YLR 1662 and Muhammad Arif Baig v. The State 2008 MLD 185 distinguished. Syed Mukhtiar Hussain Sherazi for Applicant. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, A.P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.
Through this bail application applicant seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.6/2012 for offence under sections 4/5 Explosive Act registered at Police Station CID, Sindh. The allegation against applicant as per F.I.R. are that during interrogation he disclosed that he has hidden two rocket Golay, in bushes at Suparco Road and led police party towards there and on his pointation recovery was effected. Counsel for applicant states that applicant is innocent who has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution. He submits that no private witnesses are associated which is clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Applicant is behind the bars from last eight months as such he is no more required for further investi-gation. He submits that alleged offence falls within the ambit of section 13-A Arms Ordinance but not under Explosive Act 1908. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. He placed reliance on the case-law reported as Bismillah Khan v. The State (2004 MLD 224), Zain-ul-Abidin v. The State (2010 MLD 173), Shama Khel and 2 others v. Yousuf Ali Khan and another (2008 YLR 1888), Gul Hassan alias Nadeem v. The State (2004 YLR 1662) and Muhammad Arif Baig v. The State (2008 MLD 185). Learned A.P.G. opposed the grant of bail. He submits that recovery of Two Rocket Golay on the pointation of applicant/accused is sufficient to connect him with the commission of offence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Admittedly applicant/accused led police party and on his pointation recovery of two Rocket Golay, is effected. No enmity is shown by the applicant/accused that prosecution has falsely implicated him in this case and managed Two Rocket Golay against the applicant/accused. In these type of cases no independent witnesses are ready to witness the incident, therefore, police witnesses are as good witnesses as independent witnesses. In cases referred above the facts and circumstances were different to that of case in hand, therefore the same are not applicable. The result of above discussion is that counsel for applicant/accused has not been able to make out a case for bail, therefore, this bail application is dismissed. However learned trial Court is directed to frame the charge in case and at least two witnesses i.e. complainant and mashir of recovery be examined within the period of three months. MWA/M-165/K Bail refused.