2009 PLP 2067 (YLR)
ISRAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2067 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munib Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | ISRAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2067 (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 2009 PLP 2067 (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: 2009 PLP 2067 (YLR) (ISRAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.322/337-H(i)
File and Police papers revealed that age of accused was less than eighteen years and he could be termed as a juvenile
No direct evidence was available to show that accused was in the chain, which was procuring and selling 'Katchi Sharab'
Factual position needed further investigation, accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. PLD 2002 Kar 18 ref. Saathi M. Ishaque along with Naseer Hussain Jafri for Applicant. Qazi Wali Muhammad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.--Learned, counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has wrongly been involved in this case as there is no proper evidence against him. He submits that there was some other incident and F.I.R. in respect to the procurement of the Kachi Sharab in F.I.R. No. 97/2009 was registered on 11-4-2009. In the said F.I.R. the name of Pervez alias Bhora has also been mentioned and not of the applicant. He submits that there is no connecting material to involve the applicant and that the applicant was minor at the time of incident as his date of birth is 2-5-1991 as per Birth Certificate issued by the NADRA while School Leaving Certificate also confirms the date of birth. He submits that even one day to majority will make a difference while applicant at the' time of alleged incident was seventeen years and ten months old. He has relied upon PLD 2002 Kar
18. Learned counsel has further submitted that this is an action, which has been taken by the police on the information of some report from the Civil Hospital while material witnesses are not available. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that witnesses in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. have taken the name of the applicant, therefore, bail application may be dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel, it has been assessed from the file and police papers that apparently age of the accused is less than eighteen years and he can be termed as a Juvenile while in the earlier F.I.R, which was under sections 3 and 4, has been registered against one person and not against the applicant. There is no direct evidence to show that the applicant was in the chain, which was procuring and selling that Katchi Sharab and factual position needs further investigation. Keeping in view age of the applicant and other material, applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./I-15/K Bail granted.