2006 PLP 1958 (MLD)
DARYA KHAN and others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1958 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DARYA KHAN and others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1958 (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 1958 (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 1958 (MLD) (DARYA KHAN and others — Applicants 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), Ss.302, 337-H(ii), 504; 148 & 149
Deceased had died of straight fire by co-accused while ,accused/applicant was alleged to have fired aerial fire
State counsel had conceded that only one empty each was recovered from the two places of occurrence
Pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHIR ALAM, J.
The applicants claim bail in Crime No.70 of 2002 Police Station Dhamra, District Larkana for an offence under sections 302, 337-H(II), 504, 148, 149, P.P.C. From the allegations contained in the F.I.R. it appears that parties were having matrimonial dispute. On the day of alleged incident Abdul Haque Jagirani is stated to be duly armed with Klashnikov, along with other persons including applicants Darya Khan, Mour and Qurban Ali Darya Khan and Mour were alleged to be armed with pistols whereas Qurban Ali is said to be armed with gun, there is direct allegation against other co-accused Mehar who fired from his Klashnikov straight on .nephew of complainants Abdul Rehman who succumbed to the injuries, while the other co-accused made aerial fire including the present applicants, it seems that same group of co-accused proceeded towards the house of Mst. Tajul who was stated to have died from the straight fire caused by co-accused Abdul Haque from his Klashnikov. Allegation against the present applicants are of causing aerial fire at the second incident of occurrence as well. It is contended by the learned counsel that the parties are inimical to each other and the applicants have been falsely implicated. It is further urged that only one empty from each place of incident has been recovered which does not support the case of aerial fire made against the co-accused including the applicants. It is stated that even the witnesses who are alleged to have seen the incident of causing fire-shot at Mst. Tajul namely Raza Muhammad and Mithal have not implicated the present applicant of having cause her death. Learned State counsel concedes after perusal of the police file that only one empty each was recovered from the two places of incident. Under circumstances, pre-arrest bail granted on 11-8-2005 is confirmed. However the applicants present in Court are directed to furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.100,000 each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and the security furnished before this Court may be released and discharged on furnishing surety before learned trial Court. Applicants are directed to regularly attend the trial Court and associate with prosecution as and when called upon to do so, learned trial Court may cancel the bail if the applicants misuse or abuse the concession of the bail any time. Applications in terms of the above disposed of. H.B.T./D-43/K Bail granted.