Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALLAH DINO VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Amir Hani MuslimGhulam Sajjad Gopang
2009 Y L R 2090
2009 Y L R 2090
[Karachi]
Before Amir Hani Muslim, J
ALLAH DINO---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.S-487 of 2008, decided on 23rd September, 2008.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Bail, refusal of---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.
ORDER
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.