2010 PLP 1875 (MLD)
SHAMAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1875 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAMAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1875 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1875 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1875 (MLD) (SHAMAN — 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, 324, 147, 148 & 149
Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd
Charge in the case had been framed and delay caused was on the part of accused as he remained absconded and had been declared a proclaimed offender
Name of accused appeared in the F.I.R. with specific role that he was armed with gun, had directly fired at deceased which hit him and he died on the spot due to such gun fire
As the Trial Court was proceeding with the case expeditiously and there was no delay was on the part of the prosecution, accused had not been able to make out a case for grant of bail
Bail application of accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAFQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J.
The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.17 of 2004 registered at Police Station, Mithiani for an offence under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. According to the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Khadim Hussain Chandio 23-3-2004 at 1000 hours the facts are that the present applicant Shaman along with other accused duly armed with deadly weapons came at the house of complainant party and it is alleged that the present applicant made direct fire with his gun upon complainant party, which hit Rehmatullah, who died on the spot; hence F.I.R. was lodged as stated above. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.G. and also perused the material available on record. The learned A.P.G. has vehemently opposed to the grant of bail. In this case, the charge has been framed and delay caused is on the part of the applicant/accused as who remained absent and have been declared as proclaimed offender. The name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R. with specific role that he was armed with gun, directly fired at deceased Rehmatullah which hit him and he died on the spot due to gun shot fire. As the trial Court is proceeding with the case expeditiously as observed in the impugned order and there is no delay on the part of the prosecution side, therefore the applicant has not been able to make out a case for grant of bail. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merits in this application and the same is dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months without fail. However, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application and may not influence the mind of the trial court which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to the merits of the case. Bail Application No.375 of 2009 stands disposed of. H.B.T./S-102/K Bail refused.