YLR 2010

2010 PLP 3010 (YLR)

MUJAHID ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Bail Application No. S-131 of 2010, decided on 8th July, 2010.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Tasnim, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 3010 (YLR)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Muhammad Tasnim, J
Parties MUJAHID ALI — 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 2010 PLP 3010 (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 2010 PLP 3010 (YLR)?

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

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 3010 (YLR) (MUJAHID ALI — 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)

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302

Qatl-e-amd

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Allegation against accused was that he was present at the time of occurrence and fired, but no one was injured

Direct allegation was levelled against co-accused that he had fired upon the deceased and due to his firing deceased sustained only one injury, and died

No evidence was on record to the effect that fire shot by accused had injured anyone or he had helped co-accused in killing the deceased

Case being fit for further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Abdul Haque Odho for Applicant. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, D.P.-G. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.--Present applicant has applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Khairpur but the same was dismissed vide order dated 3-2-2010. Failing aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present bail application has been filed. Relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on 3-7-2009, the complainant along with his brother Mureed, maternal uncle Imdadullah and relatives Abdul Jabbar was present in his house and Imdadullah was called at outer door on which he, Mureed, Imdadullah and Abdul Jabbar came out together and saw accused Shahid and Mujahid who asked Mureed (brother) to accompany them, to the Otaq of Sikandar alias Muhammad Hayat for talks. It is alleged that the complainant party reached at otaq of Sikandar alias Muhammad Hayat at about 10-30 p.m. where accused Shahid took out the pistol from the fold of his shalwar and fired shotupon Mureed by saying that he (Mureed) is creating problems for them and accused Mujahid also took out pistol from the fold of his shalwar and fired upon Mureed and he died on the spot. During the investigation the police arrested present applicant Mujahid on 19-7-2009 along with .30 bore unlicensed pistol loaded with four live bullets and disclosed that it is same which he used while committing the murder of deceased Mureed the brother of the complainant. The police submitted challan on 5-8-2009, showing the name of accused Shahid as absconder who was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 22-10-2009. Notice of this bail application was issued to the complainant which was served but none appeared on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that even if the story of the prosecution is believed but it no where assigns any role which connect the present applicant with the commission of offence. He has invited my attention to the contents of the F.I.R. and has argued that from the perusal of record it appears that the accused Shahid took out a pistol from the fold of his Shalwar and directly fired upon the brother of the complainant namely Mureed with intention to commit his murder which hit him on his face. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant has been un-necessarily involved in the present case by making allegation in the F.I.R. that present applicant also took out a pistol from the fold of his Shalwar and fired but no one was injured. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that from the site inspection only one empty was recovered and from the medical report it appears that there was only one wound to the deceased Mureed and as per medical report, there was only one injury showing on the body of the deceased but no other injury was found on the body. He has further argued that the present applicant has been implicated due to old enmity. On the other hand the learned D.P.G. has argued that the applicant is not entitled to bail as he was holding arm in his hand at the time of occurrence. He has further argued that no doubt that no injury was caused to the deceased from the firing made by the present applicant but it was a dangerous affair and could have injured any one. There is no such material available to support the above arguments of the learned D.P.G. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned D.P.G. and have perused the record. The allegation against the present applicant is that he was present at the time of occurrence and fired but no one was injured. There is direct allegations against the accused Shahid that he had fired upon the deceased Mureed and consequently due to his firing Mureed sustained only one injury but died. There is no evidence that fire made by the present applicant has injured any one or, he has helped Shahid in killing Mureed. From the material available on the record it is a fit case of further inquiry and the applicant is entitled to bail. I have granted the bail to the present applicant by a short order dated 8-7-2010 and these are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./M-113/K Bail granted.