2017 P Cr (PLP)
ALI HASSAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALI HASSAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (ALI HASSAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, common intention
Accused was shown present along with co-accused who allegedly had committed murder of father of complainant
No overt act, including aiding to co-accused or abetment for commission of any act had been alleged to accused except his presence
Enmity between the parties was admitted in FIR, therefore, false implication of accused could not be ruled out
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR HUSSAIN, J.
By way of this Bail Application, the Applicant/Accused, is seeking Post-arrest Bail, after rejection of his Bail Application vide Order dated 01.06.2015, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, in Crime No. 02 of 2015, under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C. of P.S. Johi.
2. The allegation against the Applicant/Accused is that he was present along with co-accused, who made straight firing upon the father of Complainant and caused his murder.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Accused has sought bail on the ground that there is admitted enmity between the parties, so false implication of Applicant/Accused cannot be ruled out. The FIR is delayed by 29 hours without any plausible explanation though the Police Station is 1-1/2 kilometer away from the place of incident. There is conflict between the FIR and the Post-mortem Report. No overt act has been attributed to the Applicant/Accused except his presence, as the role of firing upon the deceased is attributed to co-accused Muhammad Laiq, Umar and Ayoub. That all the P.Ws. are interested and inimical towards to the Accused party hence the question of tampering with the evidence does not arise. He lastly prayed for grant of bail to the Applicant/Accused.
4. Learned D.D.P.P. opposed the grant of bail to the Applicant/Accused as he facilitated the co-accused in committing murder of Complainant's father.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant/Accused as well as learned D.D.P.P. for the State.
6. The Applicant/Accused was shown present along with co-accused who have allegedly committed the murder of father of Complainant, but in the FIR except presence of Applicant no overt act, including aiding to Co-accused or abetment for commission of any act, has been alleged. Moreover, there is no recovery from the Applicant and the enmity between the parties is admitted in the FIR, therefore, the false implication of Accused cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, the Applicant/Accused is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
7. The above observations are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either side before the Trial Court. WA/A-92/Sindh Bail granted.