2021 PLP 85 (YLRN)
GUL MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2021 PLP 85 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Larkana Bench) |
| Bench Members | Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 85 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 85 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Larkana Bench) bench comprising: Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 85 (YLRN) (GUL MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 2. Learned advocate for the applicants has mainly contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case with mala fide intention; that there is delay of four days in lodgment of the FIR; that the offence with which the applicants are charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; and, that the applicants apprehending their arrest with ulterior motives at the bands of police have sought for pre-arrest bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 457 & 380
Lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, theft in dwelling house
Scope
Prosecution case was that the accused persons drove away one he-goat and lamb in odd hours of night at 3 a.m.
First Information Report was lodged with a delay of four days
Possibility of accused persons' false implication in the case after consultation and deliberations could not be ruled out
Offence with which the accused persons were charged with did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused persons had made out theircase for grant of pre-arrest bail
Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Suhail Kalhoro along with the Applicants. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.
By means of this bail application, applicants Gul Muhammad and Arz Muhammad both sons of Qadir Bux Lund have sought pre-arrest bail in the case, emanating from FIR No.14 of 2020, registered at Police Station Mouladad Jacobabad, for offence under sections 457, 380, P.P.C. after their plea for pre-arrest bail has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jacobabad by dismissing their application vide Order dated 10.03.2020.
2. Learned advocate for the applicants has mainly contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case with mala fide intention; that there is delay of four days in lodgment of the FIR; that the offence with which the applicants are charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; and, that the applicants apprehending their arrest with ulterior motives at the bands of police have sought for pre-arrest bail.
3. The learned Additional Prosecutor General has mainly contended that Applicants Gul Muhammad and Arz Muhammad, who are brothers interse along with co-accused Saddam, who happens to be the son of applicant Arz Muhammad and co-accused Ahmed allegedly by committing theft drove away one he-goat and lamb in odd hours of night at 03:00 a.m. on 17.02.2020, but the FIR was lodged with the delay of four days; that under the given circumstances, the possibility of the applicants false implication in this case after consultations and deliberations cannot be ruled out and further the offence with which the applicants are charged does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Prosecutor General has frankly conceded to the confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants. Under these peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out their case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants vide order dated 17.03.2020 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
4. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case. SA/G-17/Sindh Bail granted.