2012 PLP 1986 (MLD)
MOAZZAM alias MOAZZAN — Applicant , Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1986 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MOAZZAM alias MOAZZAN — Applicant , Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1986 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1986 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1986 (MLD) (MOAZZAM alias MOAZZAN — 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. 365-A & 34
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7
Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., common intention, acts of terrorism
Accused and co-accused persons allegedly abducted the complainant's son (abductee) for ransom
Abductee was voluntarily released and recorded his statements under Ss.161 & 164, Cr.P.0 on basis of which accused was arrested
Name of accused did not transpire in the F.LR.
Abductee did not disclose the name of accused in his statements under Ss. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C
No identification parade was conducted
No incriminating article was recovered from possession of accused- No ransom had been paid to anyone
Only piece of evidence against accused was statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 161, Cr. P. C whereby they implicated the accused
Said statements under S. 161, Cr. P. C could be considered at time of trial as they had no evidentiary value at bail stage
Challan against accused had been submitted and he was no more required for further investigation
Judgment & Decree
RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.
Applicant Moazzam alias Moazzan son of Mitho Rind has been involved in Crime No.20 of 2012 of Police Station, Tando Ghulam Ali for offences punishable under sections 365-A, 34, P.P.C. and 6/7 ATA 1997.
2. The allegations against the present applicant, according to prosecution case, are that he along with co-accused persons abducted Sarfraz Ameer son of complainant Haji Rasool Bux, who kept him under confinement for the purpose of taking ransom. The abductee Sarfraz Ameer was voluntarily released on 13-4-2012 and .his statements under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. were recorded on 17-4-2012 and 18-4-2012 respectively, in which he narrated the entire story in detail in respect of the offence. Subsequently, the applicant was arrested on 19-4-2012 and the case was challaned before the trial Court.
3. It is inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the name of present applicant does loot transpire in the F.I.R. and also, the abductee Sarfraz Ameer in his statements under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. has not implicated the present applicant. He further contends that abductee was not recovered from the custody of the applicant and no identification parade was held, therefore, the case of present applicant requires further inquiry.
4. Conversely, learned A.P.G. recorded his objection on the point that the name of applicant was given by the P.Ws. Allandad Chandio, A.S.-I. Abdul Khaliq and PC Noor Muhammad in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. We have considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.-G. and examined the record.
6. Admittedly, the name of present applicant does not transpire in the FIR: and after release, abductee Sarfraz Ameer got his statements recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. in detail, but he did not disclose the name of present applicant. The applicant was arrested on 19-4-2012, inspite of that no identification parade was held by the prosecution, no incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. There is only a piece of evidence against the present applicant is statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. of P.Ws. Allandad Chandio, A.S.-I. Abdul Khalique and PC Noor Muhammad, wherein they have implicated the present applicant, the same will be determined at the time of trial. The statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. prima facie, has no evidentiary value at bail stage. There had been no ransom paid to any one. The applicant is behind the bars since 19-4-2012 and the case has been challenged, as such, he is no more required for further investigation to the police. The applicant has succeeded to make out his case for grant of bail. In the light of above reasons, the bail was allowed to the applicant by our short order dated 7-8-2012. MWA/M-112/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.