2004 P Cr (PLP)
WASIM RIAZ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, J |
| Parties | WASIM RIAZ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (WASIM RIAZ‑‑‑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.392/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ F.I.R. was delayed and explanation advanced in respect of said delay was not convincing‑‑‑Remote Control allegedly produced by accused could have been easily foisted upon him as its price was only Rs.100 to 200 and same was available in the market‑‑‑No valuable article was recovered from accused‑‑‑Case of accused, was fit for grant of bail, in circumstances. Mumtaz Ali Khan Deshmukh for Applicant. Habeeb‑ur‑Rasheed for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Habeeb‑ur‑Rasheed for the State. According to prosecution case as put in the F.I.R. Muhammad Bashir was sleeping in his house during night in between 29 and 30‑7‑2002. At about 4‑00 a.m. two persons equipped with T.T. pistol and Khanjar entered into the house after climbing over the wall. One of them was identified as Wasim Riaz son of Muhammad Siddique being neighbourer of the complainant. They took away the valuables including cash Rs.25,000 golden ornaments, one mobile phone and one remote control. The complainant lodged F. I. R. with the Ibrahim Haidri Police on 1‑8‑2002 at 3‑15 p.m. explaining the delay by saying that he had been searching privately.
2. During investigation Wasim Riaz was arrested on 5‑8‑2002. He is said to have produced remote control of Panasonic T.V. on 12‑8‑2002. One other person namely Abid was arrested but was released afterwards as the complainant did not confirm him to be the culprit in the identification parade.
3. The bail plea of the applicant failed before the learned trial Court, therefore., present application has been filed.
4. Applicant's learned Advocate has contended that the F.I.R. is delayed and the explanation advanced in respect thereof is not convincing. He further argued that the remote control allegedly produced by the applicant has been foisted upon him. According to him its cost is only Rs.100. to Rs.200 and is available in the market. Had the applicant produced the robbed articles some valuables must have been recovered if he was the culprit. It has also been argued that there had been altercation between the applicant and complainant Muhammad Bashir two days before the F.I.R.
5. Learned State Counsel concedes to the bail plea saying that the F.I.R. is delayed and the alleged recovery is not of much significance in the circumstances.
6. In view of the broad features specially the delay in the F.I.R. explanation that the complainant had been searching for privately despite identification of one of the culprits and recovery of only remote control without further clue about any other valuable articles, the case of applicant is fit for bail. Bail granted. He shall be released on furnishing surer in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./W‑1/K Bail granted.