2008 PLP 642 (MLD)
QUDRAT ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 642 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QUDRAT ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 642 (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 2008 PLP 642 (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: 2008 PLP 642 (MLD) (QUDRAT ALI KHAN — Petitioner 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), S.392
Point in question involved in the matter of alleged robbery, required evidence
Out of eleven witnesses only three had been shown to have been examined
No material fact, in circumstances had been brought on record against the accused
Accused who was behind the bars since 2005, was allowed to be released on bail.
Judgment & Decree
MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.
Case of prosecution is that on 6-5-2006, it was reported by driver of Al-Shafiq Goods Company that after encashment of Rs.7,40,000 from M.C.B. Hawksbay Road, Truck Adda from the account of Al-Shafiq Goods Company when he reached near Gate No.6 of Al-Shafiq Goods Company two persons after getting down from one white car came to him and on gun-point snatched Rs.7,00,000 whereas the amount of Rs.40,000 which was lying in the pocket of Shalwar of the complainant was saved.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that names of this applicant or the other culprits have not been specifically names in the F.I.R. He further contended that the present F.I.R. is outcome of enmity in between this applicant and the complainant as appearing from the record and section 103, Cr.P.C. had not been complied with. He further pointed out that applicant in a case under F.I.R. No.67 of 2005 wherein this applicant was arrested on a charge under section 13-D of Arms Ordinance had been acquitted vide judgment, dated 25-11-2005. Even otherwise, from the Mashirnama as placed on record it is not clear that whether it was prepared in F.I.R. No. 67 of 2005 or in the present case. The point in question involved in the matter of robbery requires evidence. Out of eleven witnesses only three had shown to have been examined. Hence no material facts have been brought on record against the applicant at this stage.
3. Under these circumstances the applicant who is behind the bars since, 2005 is allowed to be released on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of Trial Court. H.B.T./Q-16/K Bail granted.