2021 PLP 87 (YLRN)
IMAM ALI — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2021 PLP 87 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | IMAM ALI — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 87 (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 87 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad 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 87 (YLRN) (IMAM ALI — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 2. The learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant due to their dispute over money transactions; that there is delay of seven hours in lodgment of the FIR without proper explanation thereof; and, that no overt act is attributed to the applicant. The learned counsel prays that the applicant may be released on bail. The learned A.P.G. endorsing the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant has frankly conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 504, 34 & 337-D
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, common intention, jaifah
Scope
Accused sought bail in an FIR registered under Ss. 324, 504, 34 & 337-D, P.P.C.
Enmity between the accused and complainant over money transactions was admitted in the FIR
Role of causing firearm injury to the prosecution witness was attributed to co-accused and no overt act was attributed to the accused, who was even not alleged to be armed with any weapon
Case required further inquiry into the guilt of accused falling within the purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.
Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Yaseen for Applicant. Ms. Safa Hisbani, A.P.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.
By means of the captioned bail application, applicant Imam Ali son of Abdul Sattar, seeks his release on post arrest bail in the case, emanating from Crime No.82 of 2019, registered at Police Station, Mangli for offence punishable under sections 324, 504, 34 and 337-D, P.P.C., after his bail plea has been declined by the learned IInd. Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar by dismissing his bail application vide order dated 14.01.2020.
2. The learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant due to their dispute over money transactions; that there is delay of seven hours in lodgment of the FIR without proper explanation thereof; and, that no overt act is attributed to the applicant. The learned counsel prays that the applicant may be released on bail. The learned A.P.G. endorsing the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant has frankly conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant. 3 I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.G. and have gone through the record as well as police file with the assistance of the learned A.P.G., which reveal that the enmity between the applicant and complainant over money transactions is admitted in the FIR; and, that role of causing firearm injury to PW injured Muhammad Hayat is attributed to co-accused Habib-ur-Rehman and no overt act is attributed to the present applicant, who was even not alleged to be armed with any weapon, therefore, the case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the applicant and his case falls well within the purview of section 497(2); Cr.P.C., which entitles him to the grant of concession of bail. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 18.03.2020, whereby this bail application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100000/- (Rupees one lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
4. Needless to add that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and only for the purpose of deciding the bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case. SA/I-22/Sindh Bail granted.