2010 MLD 311 (PLP)
KHAN alias KHAN MUHAMMAD MANGRIO and 2 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 MLD 311 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHAN alias KHAN MUHAMMAD MANGRIO and 2 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 MLD 311 (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 2010 MLD 311 (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: 2010 MLD 311 (PLP) (KHAN alias KHAN MUHAMMAD MANGRIO and 2 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 3. Learned Advocate for the applicants has mainly contended that the F.I.R. is delayed for three months and eighteen days without plausible explanation for such an inordinate delay; that the applicants have been involved in this case by the complainant by cooking up false story due to the enmity with mala fide intention; that offence with which the applicants are charged carries punishment upto seven years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., that co-accused Muhammad Sulleman is on bail granted by trial Court and on merits as well as on the basis of rule of consistency the present applicants are also entitled for concession of bail. He lastly submitted that the applicants have joined the trial and are attending the trial Court.
- 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the police papers. I find that the alleged incident is shown to have taken place on 16-2-2008 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 3-6-2008 and due to such an inordinate delay, possibility of false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out, the offence with which the applicants are charged does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., and co-accused Sulleman is on bail granted to him by the learned trial Court as stated at Bar by learned advocate for the applicants, who have also joined the trial. In these circumstances, the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants vide order, dated 15-4-2009, is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.381-A
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
F.I.R. in the case was lodged after more than three and half months from the alleged incident
Due to such an inordinate delay, possibility of false implication of accused could not be ruled out
Offence with which accused were charged, did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and co-accused was on bail granted to him by the Trial Court and he had also joined the trial
Interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to accused persons, was Confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.
Through this application, applicants have sought pre-arrest Bail in Crime No. 85 of 2008, Police Station Darri, Larkana, for offence under section 381-A, P.P.C.
2. Prosecution case in nutshell is that, the complainant owns a tractor and one Muhammad Sulleman Mangerio was the driver of the complainant. It is alleged that on 16-2-2008 said driver Muhammad Sulleman accompanying present applicants/accused came to complainant on the tractor and had taken keys of garage from him for parking tractor therein later on the complainant came to know that the driver had not parked his tractor in the garage, therefore, he approached elders of the accused and a private `faisla' was made between the parties by their nekmard Ghulam Mustafa Khan and ultimately the complainant appeared at Police Station Darri and lodged his F.I.R.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicants has mainly contended that the F.I.R. is delayed for three months and eighteen days without plausible explanation for such an inordinate delay; that the applicants have been involved in this case by the complainant by cooking up false story due to the enmity with mala fide intention; that offence with which the applicants are charged carries punishment upto seven years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., that co-accused Muhammad Sulleman is on bail granted by trial Court and on merits as well as on the basis of rule of consistency the present applicants are also entitled for concession of bail. He lastly submitted that the applicants have joined the trial and are attending the trial Court.
4. Learned State counsel, concedes to confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail to applicants.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the police papers. I find that the alleged incident is shown to have taken place on 16-2-2008 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 3-6-2008 and due to such an inordinate delay, possibility of false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out, the offence with which the applicants are charged does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., and co-accused Sulleman is on bail granted to him by the learned trial Court as stated at Bar by learned advocate for the applicants, who have also joined the trial. In these circumstances, the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants vide order, dated 15-4-2009, is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. H.B.T./K-17/K Bail confirmed.