2009 PLP 1492 (YLR)
RAFIQUE AHMED and 2 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1492 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | RAFIQUE AHMED and 2 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1492 (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 1492 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1492 (YLR) (RAFIQUE AHMED and 2 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
5.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.364/34
Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Accused persons were on family terms with alleged abductee and per contents of F.I.R. accused had taken alleged abductee on the pretext to get her treated by a neuro-surgeon as she had some problem regarding her mental health--Without alleging any enmity, the complainant, after narrating a story whereby her sister was abducted, had concluded that she had been murdered, which assertion had been proved wrong as alleged abductee was alive--Was yet to be determined as to whether the offence would fall under S.364, P.P.C.-Interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused persons was confirmed, in circumstances. Muhammad Sachal R. Awan for Applicants. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, State Counsel along with SIP Ghulam Sarwar I/CI/O Police Station Hala.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.
Through this application the applicants/accused seek bail in Crime No.49 of 2008 of Police Station Hala, under section 364, 34, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants/ accused contends that the applicants being innocent have been' falsely implicated in the instant case and since after completion of investigation challan has been filed, therefore, the applicants/accused are no more required by the police and, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the F.I.R. is delayed by three months and no where specifies that the abduction was made with intent to commit the murder of the abductee nor attributes any motive and the offence, if any, falls within the ambit of section 365, P.P.C. On the other hand learned counsel for the State by affirming this position does not oppose the grant of bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. The narration of the F.I.R. reflects A that the applicants/accused had family terms with the alleged abductee and per contents of F.I.R. the applicants/accused had taken the abductee on the pretext to get her treated by a neuro-surgeon as the abductee had some problem regarding her mental health. Without alleging any enmity the complainant after narrating a story whereby her sister was abducted concluded that she has been murdered, which assertion has admittedly proven wrong-as the abductee is still alive, therefore, it is yet to be determined as to whether the offence would fall under section 364, P.P.C. In view of what has been discussed above, interim-pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants/accused is confirmed on same terms and conditions. H.B.T./R-10/K Bail Confirmed.