2006 PLP 343 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AMIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 343 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 343 (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 2006 PLP 343 (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: 2006 PLP 343 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AMIN — 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.457
Prosecution witnesses claimed to have first identified the persons in the light of electric bulbs but Mashirnama of Wardat did not indicate presence of any bulb outside the hedge
Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that case was false
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J.
1. Dismissed as infructuous.
2. Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. Prosecution case is that a row over the keeping of a hedge by complainant Yar Muhammad Bhand and Zulfiqar, one of the applicant's co-accused, was going on, as the latter wanted the hedge to be removed. It is alleged that during night intervening 25th and 26th April, 2005 complainant Yar Muhammad, his son Ali Murad and cousin Sono Khan were sleeping inside their house surrounded by a hedge. They saw four persons, out of whom two had guns and two were carrying fire-sticks. Those two had shown torch to the surrounding hedge within the sight of the above-said P.Ws. It is said that when the complaintant and P.Ws. tried to prevent the culprits, Zulfiqar and one unknown person threatened them of death. The persons having shown torch to the hedge were identified as applicant Muhammad Amin and other co-accused Allanditto. The F.I.R. was lodged at 2-00 a.m. on 26-4-2005, after investigation the Investigating Officer submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. declaring the case to be false, however, the concerned Judicial Magistrate did not agree with him and issued direction for submission of challan. After receiving the challan the case was sent to the Court of Session. Bail plea of the applicant was turned down by order dated 3-6-2005. Heard arguments. The P.Ws claimed to have first identified the persons in the light of electric bulb, but the Mashirnama of Wardat does not indicate presence of any bulb outside the hedge. Also the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the case was false. In view of these facts and the strained relations in the background the applicant has a case for bail. Bail granted. He shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-304/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.