P L D 2002 Karachi 410 (PLP)
GHULAM FAREED NINDWANI‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2002 Karachi 410 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Wahid Bux Brohi, J |
| Parties | GHULAM FAREED NINDWANI‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2002 Karachi 410 (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 P L D 2002 Karachi 410 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Wahid Bux Brohi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2002 Karachi 410 (PLP) (GHULAM FAREED NINDWANI‑‑‑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)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging F.I.R. had gone totally unexplained though accused was known to the complainant party‑‑‑Nothing on record to shorn, whether inured was referred to Medical Officer for examination or treatment‑‑‑Guilt of accused in circumstances required further enquiry‑‑ Accused had remained in custody for a period of one year and seven months‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State.
Judgment & Decree
It is alleged that on the night between 7th and 8th of June, 2000 at 1‑00 a.m. complainant Muhammad Sharif, his brother Lai Muhammad and nephew Arz Muhammad woke up on barking of dogs and in the electric light saw thieves including applicant Ghulam Fareed Nindwani, who was armed with Lathi and others armed with guns and K.Ks, who were. untethering their bullock. They raised alarms and Lai Muhammad grappled with the culprits. He was given Lathi blow by Ghulam Fareed which hit him on his leg. The other culprits made fires in air from their guns and K.Ks., and went away. The incident was reported to Police Station Bahu Khoso after 20 days i.e. on 28‑6‑2000. The applicant was arrested on 25‑9‑2000. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the report with police for which there is absolutely no explanation in the F.I.R. Learned State Counsel admits that the F.I.R. is silent about this delay. Mr.Soomro further contended that applicant has completed a period of more than one year in continuous detention much before omission of 3rd and 4th provisos to section 497, Cr.P.C. The State Counsel on being asked in this behalf was not able to find out any material on record to suggest that Lai Muhammad was referred to concerned Medical Officer for examination or treatment although this was an important part of evidence but the same is missing and no explanation can be gathered from police papers. The delay in lodging the F.I.R has gone totally unexplained, although the applicant was known to the complainant party. These circumstances tend to show that the guilt of applicant requires further enquiry. Besides, the applicant has also remained in custody for a period of one year and 7 months. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and executing P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./G‑102/K Bail granted.