1983 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HANIF-Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF-Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 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 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HANIF-Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497/498--Bail-Contention that grant of bail application when almost all prosecution witnesses examined amounts to assessment of evidence which may prejudice trial -Repelled-Court has to tentatively assess evidence for grant of bail-Held, such assessment neither final nor done with a view to consider effect of entire evi dence on result of case-Blow not hitting complainant but child who died-Accused having no intention to kill child and complain ant, his wife as well as all other P. Ws. excepting two, not support ing prosecution case-Bail granted. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi for Applicant. Sarfraz Ahmad, Asstt. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This bail application arises out of the following facts :- The complainant Abdul Rasheed and accused Muhammad Haneef are brothers and had disputes about the diversion of the flow of the water. Muhammad Haneef who is the younger brother of the complainant came to house with a lathi in his hand and started abusing him. On being admonished by the complainant he hit him with a lathi blow which missed him but hit his daughter Shehnaz aged about 3 or 4 years. He again gave a blow which did not hit the complainant and hit the said child who consequently died. There is nothing to show that the accused had any intention to kill the child. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and, therefore, Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed, Asst A.-G. contends that the grant of this application at this stage will involve assessment of evidence which is likely to prejudice the trial. No doubt for purposes of granting bail the Court has to tentatively assess the evidence on record but such assessment is neither final nor it is done with a view to consider the effect the entire evidence on the result of the case. Without expressing any pinion on the merits of the case, suffice to say that except two witnesses, affect complainant and his wife, other prosecution witnesses have not suppor ted the prosecution case. In the facts and circumstances I grant bail to the applicant on furnishing a surety of Rs. 25,000 with P. R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court. M.Y.H. Bail granted.