2001 PLP 1525 (YLR)
RASHID NAEEM alias RASHID MULLA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1525 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Ghani Sheikh, J |
| Parties | RASHID NAEEM alias RASHID MULLA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1525 (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 2001 PLP 1525 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Ghani Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1525 (YLR) (RASHID NAEEM alias RASHID MULLA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case-law cited by the learned counsel. The case-law cited, by the Advocate appears to be applicable in the present case and further that the learned State Counsel has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant as there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the commission of offence.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Name of the accused was not disclosed by the complainant in the F.LR. and there was no eye-witness to connect the accused with the commission of the offence
Complainant had claimed that he saw the deceased in company of the accused and the others while going towards the river side and on seeing them the complainant told the deceased to be back immediately
Such piece of evidence was an afterthought as the complainant had not disclosed the fact in the F. I. R.
No sufficient evidence was available to connect the accused with the commission of offence
Accused having succeeded to make out the case of further inquiry he was entitled to concession of bail. Abdul Salim v. The State 1998 SCMR 1578 ref. Makhdoom Ejaz Ahmed for Applicant. M. Ismail Memon for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this application for bail on the ground that the F.I.R. was lodged by complainant on 25-5-1998 does not disclose the name of the applicant in any manner and has further submitted that there is no eye witness against the applicant to connect the applicant with commission of offence except that a further statement of complainant was recorded by the police during investigation. The complainant has said that he saw the deceased in company of applicant and others while going towards river side and on seeing them the complainant told the deceased to be back immediately. The learned counsel has submitted that this piece of evidence is afterthought as the complainant has not disclosed this fact in the F.I.R. He has further submitted that on 15-6-1998 the applicant was remanded to judicial custody till 27-6-1998 and then no challan was submitted till 25-11-1998. The bail application of the present applicant is rejected by the trial Court on the ground that matter was still under investigation and the offence was an heinous one. The learned counsel has placed the reliance on the case of Abdul Salim v. The State reported in 1998 SCMR 1578. The learned State Counsel after going through the police papers has categorically stated that there is no evidence against the applicant except the abovesaid piece of evidence which is not supported by any other direct or circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the Investigating Officer is present in Court and makes a similar statement that there is no evidence against the present applicant and challan has been put up against the applicant only on 25-11-1998. Under these circumstances the learned counsel for the State does not oppose the grant of bail to the applicant. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case-law cited by the learned counsel. The case-law cited, by the Advocate appears to be applicable in the present case and further that the learned State Counsel has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant as there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the commission of offence. Under these circumstances I am of the view that the applicant has succeeded to make out the case of further enquiry which entitles him to the concession of grant of bail. Accordingly I allow the application and grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./R-51/K Bail granted.