PCRLJ 1985

1985 P Cr (PLP)

JAMSHEED ANSARI‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 1044 and 1052 of 1984; decided on 4th November, 1984.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Hayee Kureshi, C J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1985 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Abdul Hayee Kureshi, C J
Parties JAMSHEED ANSARI‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Hayee Kureshi, C J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (JAMSHEED ANSARI‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

Headnotes / Summary

S.497/498‑‑Baii‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑No injuries alleged to have been caused by accused‑‑Most of co‑accused already on bail but accused was refused bail because in their applications no allegations against police was made‑‑Interim bail confirmed in circumstances. Hassan Inamullah and A. Hafeez Lakho with Rasheed Rizvi for Applicant. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, A.A.‑G. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

S.497/498‑‑Baii‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑No injuries alleged to have been caused by accused‑‑Most of co‑accused already on bail but accused was refused bail because in their applications no allegations against police was made‑‑Interim bail confirmed in circumstances. Hassan Inamullah and A. Hafeez Lakho with Rasheed Rizvi for Applicant. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, A.A.‑G. for the State. I propose to deal with Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 1044/1984 and 1052/1984 by this single order as these two applications arise out of the same incident and the same case. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has no objection to the confirmation of the interim order granting bail to the applicants. He states that no injuries are alleged to have been caused by these applicants and in fact there was a huge crowd of 40 persons and most of them absconding. It is also stated that most of the accused persons have A been granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Karachi, but these applicants were refused bail because in their applications allegations against the police had not been made. The learned Advocates, however, state that it shall be unjustified to keep the applicants in custody and police wants to arrest them with the purpose of maltreating them. Interim bail is confirmed. M. Y. H. Interim bail accepted.