2007 PLP 881 (MLD)
IRSHAD — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 881 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IRSHAD — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 881 (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 2007 PLP 881 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 881 (MLD) (IRSHAD — 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.396
Accused was not named in F.I.R., but his name was disclosed to be one of the culprits subsequently statement of prosecution witness made under S.161, Cr.P.C.
Five unknown persons were stated to have attempted to rob rickshaw and as rickshaw driver speeded away and refused to stop five assailants fired upon rickshaw which hit one of the passengers, who died
No recovery had been effected from accused
State counsel also conceded to the grant of bail
Judgment & Decree
FAISAL ARAB, J.
In F.I.R. No.16 of 2006 of Taluka Police Station, Larkana, the applicant' is not named. When the F.I.R. was registered it was stated that five unknown persons attempted to robe Qingqi rickshaw and as the rickshaw driver speeded away and refused to stop the five assailants fired upon the rickshaw which hit one of the passengers Mahboob Ali who died. Subsequently in 161, Cr.P.C. statements of the prosecution witnesses the name of the present applicant was disclosed to be-one of the culprits. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant lives in the nearby village of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses and if they had seen him on the date of the incident his name ought to have been disclosed in the F.I.R. He says that it is an afterthought and the applicant has been wrongly implicated. No recovery had been, effected from the present applicant. Learned State counsel also concedes, to the grant of bail. Ii the circumstances the applicant is enlarged on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. H.B.T./I-4/K Bail granted.