2017 PLP 1234 (YLR)
MOULA BUX — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1234 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J |
| Parties | MOULA BUX — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1234 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1234 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1234 (YLR) (MOULA BUX — 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)
Accused was not nominated in FIR
Delay of six days in lodging FIR, was not explained by the complainant
Such fact rendered the case against accused one of further inquiry in terms of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Bail was granted accordingly.
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 377 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention
Allegation of complainant in FIR was that certain unknown persons had committed murder of his son after sodomy
Accused was implicated in the case through supplementary statement
Such statement was made after the delay of 53 days from incident and 47 days from the FIR
No plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay
Attending circumstances brought the case of accused within the ambit of further inquiry covered under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Accused was allowed bail accordingly.
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 377 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention
Incident was un-witnessed
Name of accused did not transpire in the FIR
Accused was implicated in the case through supplementary statement of complainant, which was recorded after about 47 days of occurrence
Effect
Supplementary statement of the complainant was not equivalent to the FIR
Supplementary statement had no evidentiary value as not recognized by law
Nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused
Reasonable doubt arose with regard to the veracity of prosecution evidence
Prima facie, case against accused required further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Bail was granted to accused, in circumstances. Khalid Javed and another v. The State 2003 SCMR 1419 and Anees-ur-Rehman and another v. The State PLD 2002 Lah. 110 rel.
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 377 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention
Allegation of complainant in FIR was that certain unknown persons had committed murder of his son after sodomy
Accused was implicated in the case through supplementary statement
Co-accused had been granted extra-ordinary relief in the shape of pre-arrest bail
Accused contended that his case was at par with the said co-accused
Case of accused was also identical to that of co-accused
Consistent treatment was to be extended in favour of the accused on the basis of law of parity
Bail was granted accordingly. 2007 YLR 323; 2008 SCMR 173; 2008 SCMR 1556; 2007 PCr.LJ 1981; 2011 SCMR 161; 2012 PCr.LJ 625; 2013 MLD 1214 and 2013 MLD 1115 ref. Khalid Saeed Soomro for Applicant. Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, A.P.G. for the State. Syed Shafique Ahmed Shah for the Complainant.