2003 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD TANVEER ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TANVEER ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD TANVEER ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380/454
Bail, grant of-- Person named in F.I.R. as a witness, had not been mentioned in charge-sheet by Investigating Officer
Stolen property having been recovered and employment of accused could be considered as a circumstances to ensure that there was no probability of his abscondence
Judgment & Decree
Luqman-ul-Haque for Applicant. Habibur Rashid for the State. Date of hearing: 25th January, 2001. The applicant is facing trial before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, for offences under sections 454 and 380, P.P.C. The case was registered through F.I.R. No.173 of 2000 at Airport Police Station. This F.I.R. mentioned that one Tanveer was seen taking away a bag containing traveler cheques from the office of the complainant and he was also seen by one Asghar. Afterwards, according to prosecution case, the said traveler cheques were recovered from three persons, viz. the present applicant and co -accused Nasir Jamal and Mazhar Iqbal.
2. Mr. Luqman-ul-Haq, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the co-accused Mazhar Iqbal and Nasir Jamal have been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is not different.
3. The contention is not acceptable because the case of the present applicant is different from that of the two other accused persons as, according to the F.I.R. This applicant was seen taking away the stolen property from the place of the incident. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, that one Asghar who, according to F.I.R., saw the applicant coming out from the office i.e. that place of incident, has not been shown as a witness in the charge-sheet, is borne out from the record. The learned counsel of the applicant further submits that the memo.s of recovery show that some travelers cheques, having the same numbers, were recovered from two different accused persons. The learned counsel submits that all the stolen property has been recovered and the applicant, being a Government servant, is not likely to abscond.
4. Mr. Habibur Rashid, learned counsel for the State, concedes that one Asghar, named in the F.I.R. as a witness, has not been mentioned in the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer.
5. In view of the facts that the stolen property has been recovered and the employment of the applicant may be considered as a circumstances to ensure that there is no probability of his absconsion, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to surety in the sum of Rs.1,50,000 and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-493/K Bail granted.