2003 P Cr (PLP)
ALI GUL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALI GUL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (ALI GUL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365/34
Bail, grant of-- Case against accused was of further inquiry as complaint had been lodged after an unexplained delay of nine months
Complainant himself changed his story in his Police statement
Judgment & Decree
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365/34
Bail, grant of-- Case against accused was of further inquiry as complaint had been lodged after an unexplained delay of nine months
Complainant himself changed his story in his Police statement
Bail was granted to the accused, in circumstances. Shahadat Awan for Applicant. Fazlur Rehman for the State. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution per F.I.R. is that on the day of occurrence viz. 15-7-2001 at 20-00 hours, six accused including the applicant appeared in two cars and kidnapped Abdul Khaliq, the complainant as well as his father Daim Deen due to marriage dispute. Thereafter, Abdul Khaliq was released whereas Daim Deen was held hostage and an amount of Rs.3,00,000 was demanded for his freedom. In support of the bail application learned counsel has submitted that admittedly the complaint was filed on 4-5-2002 regarding the incident which is alleged to have been taken place on 15-7-2001. viz. after about a delay of nine months, which has not been satisfactorily explained to date by the prosecution. He has next submitted that in his police statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., the complainant has totally changed his story as he has now alleged that the fact of his father's kidnapping was made known to him 'through some one else. In the circumstances, per learned counsel, this becomes a case of further enquiry particularly as the prohibitory clause is not attracted since the accused have been challaned under section 365, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Fazlur Rehman, does not oppose the request for grant of bail application. I have heard both the learned counsel. In my opinion this is al case of further enquiry as admittedly the complainant has been lodged after a delay of nine months which has not so far been explained. Secondly, the complainant himself has changed his story in his police statement. Consequently, I would grant bail to the applicant provided he submits surety in the amount of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Bail application is disposed of. H.B.T./A-418/K Bail granted.