2009 PLP 2090 (YLR)
ALLAH DINO — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2090 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Amir Hani Muslim, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DINO — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2090 (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 2009 PLP 2090 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Amir Hani Muslim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2090 (YLR) (ALLAH DINO — 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.302
Prima facie sufficient material was to connect accused with alleged offence
Enmity was admitted between the parties and the manner in which accused was shown to have been involved, was sufficient to deny the bail to accused; however, it would be open for accused to repeat his bail application
One year having passed, the Trial Court was directed to preferably examine the material witnesses within six months after bifurcating the case of accused from that of absconding accused
Bail application, however, was dismissed. Ghulam Sajjad Gopang for Applicant. Anwar H. Ansari for the State.
Judgment & Decree
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.
Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. The learned counsel for applicant states that though the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R., but no role has been assigned to him and there is delay of five hours. Besides, the evidence is un-witnessed. The applicant along with two others has been shown to have committed the alleged offence. The complaint in the F.I.R. states that they saw the applicant and two others, who inquired about the deceased and then they went to the place where deceased was, and after some time they heard cries of the deceased. Once the mother and others rushed to the scene, they saw the applicants and two others scaling their presence for the scene and abusing the applicant's mother and others. This prima facie sufficient material to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. The enmity is admitted between the parties and the manner, in which the applicant was shown to have been involved, is sufficient to deny the bail to applicant, at this stage. However, it will be open for applicant to repeat his bail application, material witnesses are examined by the trial Court. One year has passed, thereafter, trial Court is directed to preferably examine the material witnesses within six months after bifurcating the case of the applicant from that of absconding accused. This application, however, is dismissed. The observations made by me in this bail application would not come in the way of either party during the trial. H.B.T./A-105/K Bail refused.