MLD 2002

2002 PLP 1561 (MLD)

ESSA‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Bail Application No. 1745 of 2001, decided on 15th January, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Ashraf Leghari, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 1561 (MLD)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Muhammad Ashraf Leghari, J
Parties ESSA‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1561 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1561 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Ashraf Leghari, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1561 (MLD) (ESSA‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Date of hearing: 15th January, 2002.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S.497(l)‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Tanker of complainant was followed by the truck of accused which signalled the complainant to stop his truck‑‑‑On complying the accused robbed complainant on pistol point‑‑‑Culprits who were identified by vehicle lights and after 11 days of incident were rightly picked up in identification test by three eye witnesses‑‑‑No enmity was suggested against witnesses‑‑‑Case of Haraba was covered by prohibitory clauses of S.497(1), Cr. P.C. ‑‑‑Sufficient material was on record to connect accused with commission of crime‑‑ Deeper appreciation of evidence could only be made after evidence was recorded at trial‑‑‑Accused did not deserve bail. M.R. Zia Rana for Applicant. Javed Akhtar for the State.

Judgment & Decree

The applicant Essa is involved in F.I.R. 18 of 2001 recorded at Police Station Dabeji under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance Harabah), 1979. The incident of this case had occurred on 2‑8‑2001 at about 1‑45 hours and the F. I. R. of this case was lodged by .one Darya Khan with Dabeji Police on 4‑8‑2001 ‑at about 4‑00 p.m. It is stated in the F.I.R. that he is driver of Tanker No.JP‑0382, belonging to Seth Nasir. On 1‑8‑2001 he was going from Karachi to Gujjo when on the way one Wahid Bux Bahrani also accompanied him for going to Gharo. .At about 1‑45 hours, they reached at Baba Bukhari diversion, they were approached by a truck coming behind them. The said truck gave a signal for stopping the Tanker. The complainant stopped the oil Tanker. It is stated that four persons with open faces came out from the aforesaid truck, out of whom two were armed with pistol and the rest two were empty‑handed. They were seen by complainant party in the light of vehicles and they can identify them if they are shown to them. Out of the four two persons seated in the oil tanker of complainant and went away. The remaining two who were armed with T.T. Pistol seated in their own truck and followed the tanker of complainant towards Karachi side. The complainant party got a lift in some vehicle and came to Seth Nasir. They were searching for their tanker but could not get any clue thereafter lodged this report. The police arrested the present applicant Essa alongwith accused Zulfiqar on 5‑8‑2001 when they were going in a truck bearing No. BU‑3049. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused/applicant has been implicated falsely. He is simply a labourer on the truck. The applicant was arrested on 5‑8‑2001 whereas the identification test was held on 13‑8‑2001 after 8 days of his arrest. There is no iota of evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of the offence. Mr. Javed Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the State has Opposed the bail application on the ground that the present applicant was in identification test by eye‑witnesses; Wahid Bux, Khan. The said identification test is supported by the Civil Judge and F.C.M. Mir Pur Sakro. The case under section 17(3) of the Hudood Ordinance is covered by prohibitory clause contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Perusal of record shows that tanker of the complainant was followed by a truck bearing No.BU‑3049. The tanker was robbed on pistol point by the culprits. They were identified on vehicle lights. After 11 days of the incident they were rightly picked up in identification test by three eye-witnesses. No enmity is suggested against the aforesaid witnesses. The case of Harabah is covered by prohibitory clauses of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The Harabah and the robbery cases are on rise nowadays in this area. At present there is sufficient material on record to connect the applicant with the commission of crime. The present applicant was arrested from the same truck, which had followed the tanker of the complainant. The deeper appreciation of evidence can only be made after the evidence is recorded at trial. The applicant does not deserve bail, which is declined. H.B.T./E‑16/K Bail declined.