1992 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM NABI Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 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: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM NABI Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- The applicant who is accused in Crime No.45 of 19$9 of P.S. Sekhat under sections 302, 307, 353, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. registered on 10-7-1989 is refused bail by the trial Court by order, dated 23-2-1992. The allegations contained in the F.I.R. are that there was an encounter between the dacoits and the police of Sekhat Police Station in which H.C. Azizullah received fire-arm injuries and had died. The applicant was admittedly arrested on 4-8-1989 and the identification through police officials held on 9-8-1989 in which it is stated that applicant was correctly picked out. Another F.I.R. being No.44/89 was also registered on the same day at the same police station regarding kidnapping of one Ali Dino Bhanbhro and the applicant arid the co-accused were challaned in that case as well. By judgment dated 3-6-1991 the applicant and co-accused were acquitted and the copy of judgment is placed on record. Statement of kidnappee Ali Dino was recorded in that case and he stated that the applicant and the co-accused were not those who had kidnapped him. It is contended by the learned Advocate that only evidence against the applicant is that of identification through police officials and that also 4-5 days after his arrest while he was detained at the Police Station Sekhal where police officials had opportunity to see the applicant.
- I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates and perused the impugned order as well as the judgment of the trial Court in the case under section 365-A, P.P.C. in which applicant and other co-accused have been acquitted. I have also seen the statement of kidnapee Ali Dino who had stated in the Court that the applicant (accused in that case as well) was not one of those who had kidnapped him. The identification through police officials after 5 days of arrest of applicant when admittedly he was detained at the police station would in these circumstances not have any evidentiary value. The case of the applicant in my view is of further enquiry and I am inclined to grant bail to applicant. He shall be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) to the satisfaction of the trial Court. An observation in this order shall not influence the trial while deciding the case.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/353/147/148/149
Identification of accused through police officials after five days of his arrest when admittedly he was detained at police station, did not have any evidentiary value
Case of accused was, therefore, one of further inquiry-- Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/353/147/148/149
Identification of accused through police officials after five days of his arrest when admittedly he was detained at police station, did not have any evidentiary value
Case of accused was, therefore, one of further inquiry-- Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
[Identification]. Salahuddin H. Ahmed for Applicant. A. Latif Memon, A.A.-G. for the State. The applicant who is accused in Crime No.45 of 19$9 of P.S. Sekhat under sections 302, 307, 353, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. registered on 10-7-1989 is refused bail by the trial Court by order, dated 23-2-1992. The allegations contained in the F.I.R. are that there was an encounter between the dacoits and the police of Sekhat Police Station in which H.C. Azizullah received fire-arm injuries and had died. The applicant was admittedly arrested on 4-8-1989 and the identification through police officials held on 9-8-1989 in which it is stated that applicant was correctly picked out. Another F.I.R. being No.44/89 was also registered on the same day at the same police station regarding kidnapping of one Ali Dino Bhanbhro and the applicant arid the co-accused were challaned in that case as well. By judgment dated 3-6-1991 the applicant and co-accused were acquitted and the copy of judgment is placed on record. Statement of kidnappee Ali Dino was recorded in that case and he stated that the applicant and the co-accused were not those who had kidnapped him. It is contended by the learned Advocate that only evidence against the applicant is that of identification through police officials and that also 4-5 days after his arrest while he was detained at the Police Station Sekhal where police officials had opportunity to see the applicant. Mr. A. Latif Memon, learned AA.-G. has opposed the grant of bail and has contended that the applicant was arrested on 4-8-1989 and was correctly picked out in the identification test by those police officials with whom he and co-accused had an encounter. It is further pointed out that out of 6 accused, 3 are on bail and they are Sahib Khan, Ali Sher and Jan Muhammad while 2 are absconders. I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates and perused the impugned order as well as the judgment of the trial Court in the case under section 365-A, P.P.C. in which applicant and other co-accused have been acquitted. I have also seen the statement of kidnapee Ali Dino who had stated in the Court that the applicant (accused in that case as well) was not one of those who had kidnapped him. The identification through police officials after 5 days of arrest of applicant when admittedly he was detained at the police station would in these circumstances not have any evidentiary value. The case of the applicant in my view is of further enquiry and I am inclined to grant bail to applicant. He shall be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) to the satisfaction of the trial Court. An observation in this order shall not influence the trial while deciding the case. N.H.Q./G-295/K Bail allowed.