1997 P Cr (PLP)
RASOOL BUX — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1997 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RASOOL BUX — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 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: 1997 P Cr (PLP) (RASOOL BUX — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), SAM)
Neither any features or description of accused had been mentioned in the F.I.R. nor any identification parade had been held through the witnesses to connect the accused with the crime
Case against accused consequently required further inquiry and he was admitted to bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Ahmed Saba for Applicant. A. Latif Ansari, A.A.-G. The applicant has been sent up to stand his trial under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sanghar. Bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected by the trial Court, therefore, this application. Prosecution case as stated by complainant Nazir Hussain in the F.I.R. is that while he was driving his Truck No.4911/BUA loaded with cotton bags four persons waylaid his truck and stopped it tied his hands and of his cleaner and other labourers, drove away the truck. Accused were alleged to be armed with gun and pistol. Police after registration of the case recovered the truck on the next day, allegedly from the possession of the applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.A.-G. and perused the record. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no features and descriptions of the accused are given in the F.I.R. Even no identification test has been held through the complainant and the witnesses of the case to connect him with the present crime. There is no other evidence against the applicant except that he was found at the wheels of the truck. Learned counsel further submitted that co-accused Salaim and Saino Dino have been granted bail by the trial Court. Learned A.A.-G. has opposed to the grant of bail to the applicant contending that it is a case of Harraba in which no concession of bail is to be extended to the accused. Admittedly no features or description of the accused have been mentioned in the F.I.R. There is only word of police against the applicant. No identification parade has been held through the witnesses to connect the present applicant with the crime. Case of present applicant requires further enquiry. Bail is allowed to the applicant subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./R-301/K Bail allowed.