2004 PLP 104 (YLR)
SULEMAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 104 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ata‑ur‑Rehman and Maqbool Baqar, JJ |
| Parties | SULEMAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 104 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 104 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ata‑ur‑Rehman and Maqbool Baqar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 104 (YLR) (SULEMAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/353/147/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry‑‑Allegation against accused was that when police party raided house of accused for recovery of narcotics, it was attacked by persons present over there including the accused‑‑‑No one was injured in the incident and it was ineffective firing by persons present on the spot‑‑‑Other co- accused almost on the similar ground had been released on bail‑‑‑Accused had finally been acquitted in the case against him under S.13‑D of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965‑‑‑In view of rule of consistency and fact that it was allegedly ineffective firing and that accused had been acquitted by Trial Court under S. 13‑D of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, case against accused .was of further inquiry‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicant. Muhammad Azim Panhwar for the State
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/353/147/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry‑‑Allegation against accused was that when police party raided house of accused for recovery of narcotics, it was attacked by persons present over there including the accused‑‑‑No one was injured in the incident and it was ineffective firing by persons present on the spot‑‑‑Other co- accused almost on the similar ground had been released on bail‑‑‑Accused had finally been acquitted in the case against him under S.13‑D of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965‑‑‑In view of rule of consistency and fact that it was allegedly ineffective firing and that accused had been acquitted by Trial Court under S. 13‑D of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, case against accused .was of further inquiry‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicant. Muhammad Azim Panhwar for the State ATA‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑‑‑This bail application has been filed by the applicant Suleman son of Peeral who is involved in Crime No.66 of 2000 of Police Station, Dadu, under sections 324, 353, 147, 148, 149, P. P. C. The facts of the case are narrated in the F.I.R. and also in the impugned order in brief the police party when raided house of the accused for recovery of narcotics. They were attacked by persons present over there including present applicant. However, it is admitted that no one was injured in the incident. It was ineffective firing by persons present on the spot. Other co‑accused almost on the similar grounds has been released on bail. In the same case co‑accused Muhammad Azim, Haji Nooruddin and Haji Abdul Ghafoor were allowed bail by this Court in Criminal Bail No.257 of 2000. The learned counsel referred to the judgment dated 31‑5‑2000 passed in Criminal Case No.24 of 2000 (The State v. Suleman under section 13‑D in Crime No.68 of 2000). By this judgment, the applicant has been acquitted by the trial Court and no appeal has been preferred against this order. Keeping in view the rule of consistency and in view of the fact that there was allegedly ineffective firing and the applicant has been acquitted by the trial Court under section 13‑D, the case of the accused requires further enquiry. The applicant is allowed bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S‑327/K Bail granted.