2009 PLP 2175 (YLR)
KHADIM HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2175 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Pir Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | KHADIM HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2175 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 2175 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Pir Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2175 (YLR) (KHADIM HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Delay of seven days in lodging F.I.R.
Accused was in jail for the last 16 months, but during said period of 16 months not a single witness had been examined by the Trial Court
Accused was entitled for bail and same could not be withheld as punishment
Accused was granted bail in circumstances. Ameer Ali Mahessar for Applicant. Mukhtiar Ahmed Khanzada for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SYED PIR ALI SHAH, J.
This bail application has mainly been argued that there is un-explained inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R. It is argued that complainant Muhammad Haroon and P.W. Faizan have sworn their affidavits exonerating the applicant from the commission of the offence. It is stated that there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence, so also likelihood of absconding of the applicant. Copies of affidavits of complainant Muhammad Haroon and P.W. Faizan have been produced. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed to the grant of bail to accused Khadim Hussain, as according to him, seven days delay in lodging of F.I.R. has been explained and that complainant and P.W. Faizan have not been produced before this Court. He argued that specific role has been assigned to the applicant and, as such, in absence of any enmity with the complainant party, accused is not entitled for bail. As per F.I.R., allegations against the present applicant are that on 16-2-2007 he along with three others stopped the complainant who was riding the motorcycle along with P.W. Faizan. It is mentioned that the face of one person was muffled and others were open faces and out of them, one muffled face person armed with pistol asked the complainant to get down from motorcycle due to resistance of the complainant, the face of muffled person was exposed and he was identified as Khadim Hussain Korai. Thereafter they robbed motorcycle and fled away. The matter was initially complained to the nek mards and afterwards it was reported to the police on 23-2-2007 at 2-30 p.m. The complainant and P.W. Faizan have sworn their affidavits before the trial Court and their filing of affidavits before this Court are not essentially required. Obviously, there is delay of seven days in lodging of F.I.R: The applicant was arrested on 25-2-2007 and, as such during past 16 months not a single witness has been examined by the trial Court. In these circumstances, applicant/accused is entitled for bail and his bail cannot be withheld as a sought of punishment, he is granted bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. one hundred thousand and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T:/K-24/K Bail granted.