2000 PLP 2850 (YLR)
NOORAUHAMMAD ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent .
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2850 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar, J |
| Parties | NOORAUHAMMAD ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent . |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2850 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 2850 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2850 (YLR) (NOORAUHAMMAD ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent .). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV. of 1860), 5.324/353/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑No crime empty having been recovered from the .place of incident, factum of encounter was contended to be one of .further inquiry‑‑ Motorcycle on which the accused was riding at the time of occurrence, though according to the complainant was a stolen one, yet no F.I.R. in that regard had been registered against him‑‑‑Prosecution did not contest the bail application and conceded to the grant of bail‑‑‑Accused was admitted‑ to bail in circumstances. Qadir Khan for Applicant. Arshad Lodhi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
.Applicant Noor Muhammad seeks bail in Crime No. 51 of 1999 registered under sections 324, 353 ‑and 34, P.P.C. at Police Station, Shahrah‑e‑Noor Jehan, Karachi.
2. Precisely the facts of the prosecution case are that Inspector Jawed lqbal, on 20‑4‑1999, S:H.O. of Police Station, Shahrah‑e‑Noor Jehan was busy on patrolling within his jurisdiction, when at about 0645 hrs he saw two suspects riding on a motorcycle.. He spotted them to stop, upon which motorcyclist started firing upon police and police also retaliated in self -defence.. Consequently the rider was injured and motorcycle fell and both the culprits were apprehended and‑from their possession .33 bore pistols were also recovered. On inquiry they disclosed their names to be applicant Muhammad Noor and injured Muzaffar Hussain‑ Shah.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no incident of this sort took place and the applicant was arrested from his house. He further disclosed that not even a single empty has been recovered from the place of vardat, as such the factum of encounter requires further inquiry. According to him this act at the most be a case of 13‑D of Arms Ordinance as unlicensed pistol was said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. With regard to motorcycle it is argued that though according to the complainant the said motorcycle was a stolen one, .yet he has not been able to show any F.I.R, in that respect, as such the allegation against the applicant requires further inquiry.
4. On the other side, the learned counsel for the State does not oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and frankly concedes, to the grant of bail.
5. Accordingly the applicant is allowed bail. He shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./N‑26/K Bail allowed.