2007 PLP 2340 (YLR)
NOOR NABI and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2340 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munib Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | NOOR NABI and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2340 (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 2340 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Munib Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2340 (YLR) (NOOR NABI and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)
Further . inquiry
Accused and complainant were known to each other and not only names of accused, but their fathers names and their residential addresses were also mentioned--Neither any independent witness was named nor the wagon number, was given
Recovery of mobile phone, could not be given such a weight as to deny accused bail to contest the matter
Case against accused appearing to be of _further inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram for Applicants. M. Ismail Bhutto for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.
Learned counsel for. the applicants submits that F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant who has a grudge with the applicants as they bring their cattle for grazing in his field and due to that some dispute had arisen. Learned counsel submits that story narrated in the F.I.R. is apparently false as even the Wagon number in which complainant and his colleagues were travelling had not been given rtor name of the driver or other passenger is given, nor any identity of them has been obtained by the complainant nor police has made any effort to place any of the neutral person of the Wagon or the driver as the witness, but the companions of the complainant are only shown as witnesses. He further submits that the alleged incident took place on 26-5-2006 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 28-5-2006 i.e. with two days' delay which has not been explained and' from the contents of the F.I.R. it appears that there was negotiation for return of the robbed mobile and amount, which was not possible as the complainant would have immediately gone to police station for report. Mr. M. Ismail Bhutto, State Counsel has only objected on the ground that mobile has been recovered. After hearing the learned counsel and perusal of the F.I.R. it"appears that the applicants and complainant are known to each other as not only names of the applicants but their fathers names and A residential addresses are also mentioned. There is no independent. witness nor the Wagon number while the recovery of the mobile cannot be given such a weight to deny the applicant bail to contest thel matter. In the circumstances it appears that the case seems to be of further. inquiry hence applicants are admitted to bail in the I sum of Rs.100,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H,B.T./N-29/K Bail granted.