2005 P Cr (PLP)
JIANDAL SHAH and another‑‑‑Applicants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, J |
| Parties | JIANDAL SHAH and another‑‑‑Applicants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 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 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (JIANDAL SHAH and another‑‑‑Applicants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 498‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑‑Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, prima facie was not applicable against accused whereas Art.4 of said order was bailable ‑‑‑Allegation in the F.I.R. was that accused succeeded in escaping from clutches of raiding party which consisted of 7 persons‑‑‑Accused had succeeded in escaping from clutches of raiding party at the relevant time did not appeal to reasons‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed on the same terms and conditions‑‑‑Accused, however were directed to join Trial Court. Irfan Ahmed Qureshi for Applicants. Rasheed Qureshi, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Irfan Ahmed Qureshi for Applicants. Rasheed Qureshi, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Through this application applicants seek pre‑arrest bail in Crime No.69 of 2004 in an offence punishable under sections 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at Police Station Bhan on 23‑8‑2004. The applicants approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Dadu by filing Cr.B.A. No.870 of 2004, but their bail application was dismissed vide order, dated 7‑9‑2004 by learned Sessions Judge, Dadu, the applicants have filed application before this Court for seeking pre- arrest bail In the above‑mentioned crime. On 20‑10‑2004 interim pre‑arrest bail was granted subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount. Mr. Qureshi submits that Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was not applicable against the accused whereas Article 4 of the said order is bailable as no recovery was effected from the applicants/accused as the applicants succeeded in escaping from the clutches of the raiding party as disclosed in the F. I. R. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General has conceded the factual as well as legal position. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties. Admittedly Article. 3 of the aforesaid order prima facie is not applicable against the applicants/accused whereas Article 4 is bailable one. The contention raised by learned counsel for the applicants carry weight. The raiding party was consisted of 7 persons and it does not appeal to the man of prudent mind that applicants succeeded in escaping from the clutches of the raiding party on the relevant time. In view of the above and no objection of the learned State Counsel pre‑arrest bail already granted to the applicants vide order, dated 19‑10‑2004 by this Court is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The applicants are directed to join the trial Court. They are also required to furnish the surety in the same Court. H.B.T./J‑12/K Pre‑arrest bail confirmed.