1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUMTAZ‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Tanzil‑ur‑Rehman, J |
| Parties | MUMTAZ‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Tanzil‑ur‑Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUMTAZ‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 397 & 342‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Stolen property recovered on pointing of accused and identified by complainant‑‑Police not taking any steps to arrest accused and to get him identified at relevant time‑‑Accused arrested and identified after about two years from date of alleged recovery‑‑Case, held, required further inquiry‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. M.L. Shahani fur Applicant. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M.L. Shahani fur Applicant. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to my earlier order, dated 26‑7‑1984 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 648/84 moved by accused Irshad Ali. Present application has been moved by Mumtaz who is alleged to be co7accused in the same case. Mr. Shahani has invited my attention to the following observations made by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in his order, dated 22‑4‑1984 while rejecting the bail application moved by the present applicant, as well as the previous one:‑ "On 14‑12‑1981 a golden ring was recovered from the accused Mumtaz on his pointation on same date on pointation of accused Irshad Ali a golden neckless and an ear‑ring were recovered and the property recovered from above-said accused was identified to be his by the complainant Ghulam Muhammad on 27‑1‑1982." It is pertinent to note that when the property alleged to have been stolen by the present applicant the co‑accused, was recovered on his pointation and the property was identified on 27‑1‑1982 by the complainant to be his, the police did not take any steps to arrest the applicant and get him alongwith the accused Irshad identified at that time., They were, however, arrested on 12‑11‑1983 and identified on 14‑11‑1983. In view of these facts, stated above, the case requires further inquiry. Learned Addl. A.‑G. concedes to this position. I, therefore, grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs.30,000 and P.R. bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. It may however, be added that if the evidence is produced in the trial Court which, in his view, is sufficient to implicate the applicant with the commission of the offence, in this case, the learned trial Judge will be at liberty to cancel the bail. H.A.K. Bail granted.