2005 PLP 3219 (YLR)
WALIDINO alias GUDDO — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 3219 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J |
| Parties | WALIDINO alias GUDDO — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 3219 (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 2005 PLP 3219 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 3219 (YLR) (WALIDINO alias GUDDO — 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), Ss.324 & 353
Neither any body was injured in the alleged incident nor empties of any kind were recovered from place of Wardat as affirmed by A.A.-G. after going through Mashirnama of Wardat prepared by police itself, though police had applied S. 324, P. P. C. along with S. 353, P.P.C.-Valid reasons were available to believe that case had been falsely foisted by police on accused
Accused, in circumstances was entitled to bail as a matter of right. Rizwan Ahmed Memon for Applicant. Mashooq Ali Sammo, Asstt. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.
The applicant having been implicated on the charges of deterring the police officials from performing their lawful duties as alleged in the F.I.R. Crime No.63 of 2003, registered by S.I.P., Ali Bux Jamali on behalf of the State has prayed for bail.
2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that as usual the applicant has been falsely implicated and a concocted F.I.R. has been registered against him as no such incident has taken place. None of the police officials was injured.
3. Learned A.A.-G. has no objection to the grant of bail.
4. The contentions raised have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused.
5. Admittedly neither anybody was injured nor empties of any kind were recovered from the place of Wardat as affirmed by learned A.A.-G. after going through the Mashirnama of Wardat prepared by the police itself, though police has applied section 324, P.P.C. also along with section 353, P.P.C. There are valid reasons to believe that this case has been falsely foisted by the police. He is accordingly entitled to bail as a matter of right.
6. The applicant is accordingly directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Before parting with this order, it must be stated that it appears that there is no check on the atrocities and victimization being committed by the police upon the innocent citizens, which reflects sorry state of affairs. It is rather more concerning to observe that in some cases the subordinate Judges have rendered themselves inept to arrest the situation, partly for want of acumen and competence and mainly due to lack of confidence, courage, prudence and wisdom. Resultantly superior Courts are unnecessarily burdened with petty matters. This problem must be taken care of by the District and Sessions Judges in an effective manner. Separate instructions to follow. H.B.T./WS-17/K Bail granted.