MLD 2010

2010 PLP 1836 (MLD)

MURTAZA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2009-July-20
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 1836 (MLD)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties MURTAZA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1836 (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 2010 PLP 1836 (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: 2010 PLP 1836 (MLD) (MURTAZA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Headnotes / Summary

S.497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 337-H(ii), 148 & 149

Qatl-e-amd

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Record and police papers had disclosed that accused was armed with hatchet, while whole prosecution case was silent on the fact that accused had inflicted any hatchet blow to complainant or prosecution witnesses at the spot

Main role had been assigned to co-accused, who had directly fired on deceased with his pistol

Post-mortem report had also revealed that there was no hatchet injury on the body of the deceased

High Court had ordered that the Trial Court should conclude the trial within three months, but that had not been complied with

No active role was played by accused in commission of offence, mere presence of accused armed with hatchet, was not sufficient to keep accused in jail for an indefinite period

Accused having made out a case of further, inquiry, he was admitted to bail.

Judgment & Decree

SYED SHAFQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J.

Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 105 of 2005 Police Station Gamsat under sections 302, 148,149,337-H(ii), P.P.C. Facts unfolded in the F.I.R. that applicant was armed with hatchet along with co-accused. Accused Rasheed Kaleri directly fired on the Sanjar Khan with pistol which hit on chest and abdomen. Sanjar Khan died due to injuries while he was being taken to Gambat Hospital. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.-G. for the State and learned A.P.-G. has opposed for bail to the extent that applicant was present on the spot. After verification of the record and police papers disclosed by the learned A.P.-G. that the applicant was armed with hatchet F.I.R. whole prosecution case is silent that applicant has inflicted any hatchet blow to complainant or P.Ws. present at the spot. Main role has been assigned to the accused Rasheed Kaleri who directly fired on the Sanjar Khan with his pistol and the Sanjar Khan sustained injury on his chest and abdomen and he fell down on the spot and died. The postmortem report also reveals that there is no any hatchet injury on the body of the deceased. On 3-3-2009 this Court ordered that the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within three months. The learned counsel for applicant has also submitted the case diaries that the trial Court has failed to conclude the trial within three months. He has cited the case law of apex Court 1999 SCMR 2147, in this case learned apex Court has opined that despite direction of High Court trial against the accused had not been completed by the trial Court within the specified period. Prosecution was unable to give any explanation for non-compliance of the said order of High Court, and the accused are admitted to bail. Since there are no specific allegations against the applicant/accused. No active role played by the applicant in commission of offence mere presence of the accused armed with hatchet is not sufficient to keep in jail for indefinite period. Accused is in jail since 5-5-2008. For the foregoing reasons applicant/accused has made out a case of further enquiry. Applicant is admitted on bail subject to furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs.400,000 (Four Lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application and may not influence the mind of the trial Court which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to the merits of the case. H.B.T./M-162/K Bail granted.