2009 PLP 796 (MLD)
SULTAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 796 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SULTAN — 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 796 (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 2009 PLP 796 (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: 2009 PLP 796 (MLD) (SULTAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Learned Advocate for the State states that in the cases of counter-version it is settled law that both the parties are to be kept at bar. In the present case, the other side has already been granted bail by the Court. Many accused in this case have been granted bail and only the present applicant remains in jail. Learned State counsel does not oppose the bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Counter cases 'existed between the parties and one side had already been granted bail
All co-accused had been granted bail by the High Court as well as by the Trial Court and only the accused was left confined in jail
State Counsel had stated that in the cases of counter-version, both the parties were to be kept at par and did not oppose grant of bail to accused
High Court refrained from making any comments on the merits of the case as that could prejudice the case of either party
Keeping in view the said principle to be exercised in the case of counter-version it was yet to be determined at the trial as to which party was aggressor
Accused was admitted to bail under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. holding the case as one of further inquiry.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMAD, J.
It is stated by the learned counsel that there are counter cases between the parties, the other side has already been granted bail. As far present case is concerned, all the co-accused have been granted bail by this Court as well as trial Court. Only the present accused is remaining in jail. The main argument of the learned counsel is that although in the F.I.R. the main part has been attributed to the present applicant but is yet to be decided at the trial stage as to who is aggressor in this case. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail. Learned Advocate for the State states that in the cases of counter-version it is settled law that both the parties are to be kept at bar. In the present case, the other side has already been granted bail by the Court. Many accused in this case have been granted bail and only the present applicant remains in jail. Learned State counsel does not oppose the bail. I have heard both counsel as well as learned State counsel. I have perused the record the impugned order of the learned trial Court. At the bail stage I will refrain from making any comments on the merits of the case as this may prejudice the case of either party. However, keeping in view the principle exercised in the case of counter-version that it is yet to be determined at the trial as to which party was aggressor, I admit the present applicant to bail under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. holding the case as one of further inquiry. The applicant is granted bail upon furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P. R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-44/K Bail granted.